www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Catholic Bishop vs. "Catholic" Politician

AMDG
Dear Krylos Leader,
I'm sorry if I made you feel "in trouble." My point was that there is no situation in which there is one right thing for Bartlett the man and another right thing for Bartlett the Christian and another right thing for Bartlett the President.

There are no insoluble dilemmas in Moral Theology. That's why clear distinctions are so important. We need clear distinctions 1) within moral theology, and 2) between moral theology proper, and "virtue-based" ethics which are necessary, but do not provide the answers to moral dilemmas.

It was in the interest of clarity that I sought a distinction between the various "moral objects" in question.

I apologize for coming off the wrong way--my bad.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Altar Boy posts:

Gee, and LatTrad thinks I am overly critical of the Catholic Church.

I think as long as one shares Altar Boy's presumption that most of the rest of the Catholic episcopate are traitors in mitres, the bishop's action becomes defensable.

I don't think the bishop's action is defensible if one does not share Altar Boy's presumption.


So the bishop has failed to provide clarity is a publicly taken action.

More fuzziness in the bishop's action. One standard of recklessness for politicans, another for one's own "fraternity".

The third example of the bishop's failure to make a clear statement by his actions.


To summarize, I hardly think I should be called anto-Catholic when those making the accusation damn the vast majority of leaders of their own church. Second, if a bishop is going to issue a press release (as opposed to other fora such as the confessional or counseling) to a public person not under his pastoral care but who he thinks might travel in his diocese at some point, he is obviously trying to make a sign and statement to the world and not us to the one individual soul. Under such circumstances he has a heavy obligation not to be reckless and to make sure his decision to make a public expression of a private act is done in a way that it fully and properly represents what it is indented to.

Yet, as we see here, even his defender has no explaination to three aspects of his action.

Axios

If it is a universal truth, then why the ommission of any instructions to his clergy?

Detailed instructions from a bishop to his clergy are not usually printed on page 1 of the local newspaper. Since Bishop Henry has spoken publicly on the issue it is highly likely that his priests will simply follow his lead. Generally speaking, however, a bishop would never forbid his priests from giving the Sacraments to anyone, unless there was a formal excommunication. It is always possible that the PM Chretien would recant and repent his embracement of immorality. I believe that about a year ago Bishop Henry also forbid the marriage of a man and woman in one of his parishes because both were abortionists. He appears to be very consistent in staunchly upholding Christian moral teachings, especially when they are attacked by people calling themselves Catholic.

Why not calling to task his fellow bishops who allow the Minister to receive?

Don�t know. It is quite possible that he has done so privately. It is also possible that he respects that different bishops may have differing pastoral views on how best to handle the situation. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops did issue a strongly worded statement to Creitien.

Why does the bishop not mention other public officials (like members of the Conservative Party) who have the same views?

One would not expect him to publish a list but I believe that Bishop Henry has said much the same thing about other politicians. I think it is a fair comparison to when Mother Theresa spoke in Washington, DC in 1994 and then publicly scolded then President Clinton for his pro-abortion position. Speaking out against the leading individual of a particular political organization is, in effect, speaking out to all who hold such an immoral position.

--

Actually, Axios, people have been complaining about your anti-Catholic posts. You post as if you were trying to make Orthodoxy look good by calling to attention of the sins committed within the Catholic Church. When you routinely compare the best behavior of one person or group to the worst behavior of another person or group you wind up wit a reputation for being against the group you continually attack.

I don�t think that Bishop Henry was at all reckless in his statement. If people are going to call themselves Catholic they ought to start living like Catholics and supporting Catholic moral values within society. If they are not they should not be approaching the Chalice. The bishop�s words might just have been what was needed to call Canada to action to prevent the destruction of marriage and the family.

"There are no insoluble dilemmas in Moral Theology?" Ever hear of the movie 'Sophie's Choice.' What of all the Christians in World War II who had been told all their lives by their pastors to be obedient to lawful authority and yet risked their lives to hid Jews? If you ever saw the movie on the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and how he struggled as to whether or not to join the conspiracy to kill Hilter was the right moral choice you might realize how difficult making such decisions are in the real world. Arvid

Educate me, but I thought there was a princple of Catholic canon law (and a latin phrase that goes with it which I cannot recall) to the effective of related actions are to be conducted in a like forum -- i.e. public forum or private forum. So I don't understand a public act by the bishop with private instructions to his priests to do the same.

Yes, that's my question as well.

I think one would either expect him to desribe the situation in which one is barred from communion or name all of those individuals are are barred.



You should see the complaints I get about you in private messages and off-line emails!!

However, if you think it would be best I will try to post more often on failures of the Orthodox Church. I certainly stood up and defending the Catholic Church's rights in Russia and objected to the unecumenical and illiberal positions of the MP. I have expressed an admiration for Catholic social teaching and the fact Catholicism has a very strong pro-life witness while sadly Orthodox women have the highest abortion rate of any religion. I have been critical of the Orthodox Church for being passive on evangelization while complaining that others plow the fields we abandon.

Nevertheless, I am not going to accept that someone can call the Catholic episcopate "traitors in mitres" and concurrently call me anti-Catholic for questioning the actions of one bishop.

Axios

Yes, I am aware that a few have accused me of being a homophobic bigot because I defend Christian morality and am not silenced by such false accusations.

There is a difference between calling people to account for not upholding the Faith and what you are doing. You are purposefully and knowingly attacking the Catholic Church.

AMDG
Arvid, just because there are difficult questions does not mean there is no right answer. That is why clear Moral Theology (as used to be common in Dominican and Jesuit seminaries) is so important.

That is why I think Byzantines who refuse to engage scholastic thought are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Just a thought.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

AMDG

Axios, I think I said before that if you want to criticize individual clerics or bishops, then fine.

The problem is when you go out of your way to tar the Catholic Faith, and make far-fetched arguments in order to poke holes in the Church.

For instance, in the thread on starting new parishes, you came in and started making snide remarks about "abuse." It had nothing to do with the thread. As I told you then, and I'll say it again, the abuse problem is primarily a problem of infiltration by those who see nothing wrong with homosexual acts. Most of the relationships in question have nothing to do with "children" but with young men. Yet, your profile links to a website that calls homosexual behavior "healthy."

Please consider, through prayer, bringing YOUR OWN position in line with that of right reason and Divine Revelation, and then your criticisms of bishops will have all the more weight.

And also, please reflect on how necessary some of your comments are.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

I believe your preferred spelling is "unecumencial", Kurt/Konrad, er, I mean, Axios... :rolleyes:

I disagree. While the East has not done a good job of presenting the Eastern Christian approach to applying reason to faith one should not automatically conclude that scholastic thought is superior. It isn�t. Even within classis Western scholasticism there are many different approaches. The only thing that all scholastics hold in common is that the philosophical approach to reason and faith should always take into account Christian faith (and faithfulness). These are the same essential elements one finds in patristic thought.

AMDG

Nevertheless, St. Thomas Aquinas developed the relationship between Faith and Reason to an exquisite degree, giving us all a leg up in answering many questions.

I don't think that Easterners should aviod St. Thomas merely because he is western. Westerners do not feel the need to avoid Cyprian or Basil.

Certain good things can come from the West, after all . . .

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Friends:

I think the Latin West journeys deeper into the realm of reason, edging toward its common boundary with Faith.

Is it superior to that of the East? I don't know; but it is a journey of discovery as it should and always will be.

As such, the Catholic Church is armed with perhaps a more potent weapon to face and ward off the challenges thrown at her, in her attempt at global evangelization, by the differing and various philosophies of the world's religions: from Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism to Greek philosophy intricately wrought by Plato and Aristotle.

The Catholic Church can and did host a prayer meeting at Assisi twice, involving the world's religions, with confidence but to the chagrin of some of the Eastern Churches, if I remember it right.

Pope John Paul II's Encyclical "Fides et Ratio" presents clearly the Catholic Church's position.

Amado

Dear LatinTrad and Amigo Amado,

St Thomas Aquinas, in his day, was called the "Father of all Heretics" by St Bonaventure, you know

Orthodox theologians after him did borrow his moral musings and some even came to venerate him as a saint in private, calling him "Blessed Thomas" and excusing his defence of the Filioque as a result of having been born in the West - something out of his control (Meyendorff "Byzantine Theology" - I forget the page numbers though . . .).

And, Latin Trad, you are really getting on my nerves today, Big Guy!

You assume that all EC's are against Aquinas.

Well, I can't speak for the Ruthenians here (there will come a day when I'll understand them, I know it will! ), but our Patriarch Josef the Confessor had a Byzantine icon of Aquinas written in his Church of St Sophia in Rome and had a great veneration for him.

You really have no idea about Eastern Catholics, like most of my TradLat professors in Catholic high school, and yet you presume to pass judgement on us.

Again, you've got a lot of "sifting" work to do in your own church before you can come to us to presume to teach us Christian faith and morals.

It was St Thomas Aquinas and his discussion of the procession of the Holy Spirit "From the Father THROUGH the Son" that first twigged my interest in that topic.

I don't want to say too much more on the Filioque because I know it sends Cantor Joe Thur off the edge . . .

Alex

AMDG

Chill out, Alex. Take a deep breath and count to ten.

I sincerely apologize for any offense given--it was all in good humor. I respect your erudition as far superior to my own and I would never want to get on your nerves.

I have spent time in Byzantine parishes and Byzantine circles and I have met SOME Byzantines (especially Arabs) who avoid studying Thomas because he is one of "us". It was of them that I thought, as I spoke in my rashness. Of course I don't presume to pass judgment on all Byzantine Catholics.

I love the Byzantine liturgy and traditions, and have always made an honest effort to appreciate the Eastern "side" of the "differences" between us. My only intention was to humbly submit that Scholasticism is not something of which to be afraid. I am only thinking within my experience in certain parishes.

I apologize to all.

(on the side, I have been reamed by some for using "Western Terminology" capital w capital t, and maybe I was feeling a little defensive about using "Western" solutions to the moral issues.)

Much Abashed,

LatinTrad

Really? Should this be important to Eastern Christians? Why? Are you suggesting that we abandon the Eastern Christian way of doing theology because you have a personal preference for Aquinas? Would it not be better to learn the Eastern Christian way of doing theology and approaching questions of faith and reason before condemning it? I studied Aquinas in college and his approach just does not make sense for Eastern Christians.