Well, right after my October 28th comment/rant many individual bishops came out and said clearly that Catholics cannot continue to support politicians that support a culture of death. You cannot profess with your mouth one thing and VOTE another way.

Most notably, Bishop Emeritus Rene H. Gracida of Corpus Chrisi and the words of Bishop Martino of Scranton Pennsylvania-Bishop Martino arrived unannounced in the midst of a panel discussion on faith issues and the presidential campaign at St. John’s Catholic Church on Sunday. According to people who attended the event, the bishop chastised the group for holding the forum and particularly took issue with the discussion and distribution of excerpts from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ position on voting issues. The document defines abortion and euthanasia, as well as racism, torture and genocide, as among the most important issues for Catholic voters to consider.“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese,” he was quoted as saying in the Wayne County Independent, a Honesdale-based newspaper. “The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.” “The only relevant document ... is my letter,” he said at the forum, according to the Independent. “There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”

According to participants, Bishop Martino expressed dismay that the panelists did not discuss the pastoral letter he directed all priests in the Diocese to read in place of their homilies on Oct. 4 and 5. In that letter, he called on Catholic voters to consider abortion above all other issues, except those he defined as having equal moral weight, like euthanasia and embryonic stem-cell research.

Pray for the bishops. Pray they have the spine to put the real truth before us and make us face the reality of what we do. Pray that we form men worth of thier calling-willing to make a statement to the faithful-and to the community at large-to instruct us on PRACTICAL matters of faith.

The abotion issue and comments

The problem with the current statements on abortion and other current discussions within the Church is very simple-as plain as the nose on your face. The Church has an already stated and communicated position on these matters. The issue then becomes one of clarity. We have all seen these various “clarification” statements from our priests and bishops. Most fill complete pages to validate themselves or their political patronage. Very few address the issue at hand cleanly and honestly. When an average person reads what should be a simple, lucid statement of Catholic teaching, they are left wondering what the bishop (or priest) actually said, much less what he MEANT.

The problem is that both the Church and her princes are verbose when clarity is needed. It appears that social welfare has replaced the Gospel of Christ. They want to appear educated and refined, sufficiently grave and reserved. They cover too many topics at once (particularly when a single issue is raised) and wind up saying nothing at all. The faithful then spend an inordinate amount of time trying to debate “What the Bishop/priest MEANT was….” and calling each other “heretic.”

The faithful and society in general have placed the proverbial golf ball on the tee, given the bishops a driver the size of a shoebox and they have collectively “whiffed.” A small remnant imitates Tiger Woods but the majority has just plain missed the ball entirely. They must DO something more than stand in the tee box and sheepishly grin at us. We deserve better. We must begin to demand it.

Good Question

This is about the Declaration on Euthanasia, written by Pope John Paul in 1980 I think.

It's a little complicated, and I don't want to use names of course, in case someone reading this knows the family.

I have a friend, a nurse, who's relative, a 96 yr old widow, had a stroke a couple of weeks ago. They called it a storm, meaning most of her brain has been affected. She is paralyzed on her left side and cannot talk, though she seems to be aware of her surroundings, responds to them and can make noises. She also "fusses" when they move her or change her clothes, so she is very much "with us" though she cannot communicate clearly.She is stable enough; so that they were able to bring her home last week. The woman's daughter lives with her, and they have home health help.

The problem is this: the hospital personnel and doctors involved with her in the beginning, even the home health nurse who was with her at the time of the stroke, said that since she has a DNR in place, and has signed a living will, that they would recommend that she not receive care. They even felt that she should not receive nourishment.

My friend, being an in-law, and not the blood kin, had kept her mouth shut until this point. She insisted that the Church requires that a patient receive basic care and that would include nourishment, even if that involved a feeding tube. She was surprised at the response she got from the hospital personnel and even from her own family members, one of whom is a hospital administrator. She was told that the lady was old and it would be unfair to force her to live when she was in such a state. They said her "quality of life" would be poor, and besides it was not her decision anyway. My friend said she felt that they were being pressured to let the woman die.

So she encouraged her husband to consult their priest, before making a decision. Apparently the lady's daughter agreed with her, and said she had no intention of starving her mother to death, and requested they insert the feeding tube. Which they did. The lady is holding her own and seems happy to be in her own home. The next day they spoke with their priest (and this is the clincher) Father said the feeding tube could be considered "extraordinary measures" and it would not have been wrong to decline it. He is saying the feeding tube is "invasive" .

Who gets to decide what are extraordinary means? We have read this Declaration as part of our biology class and it IS vague to me. Do we leave these decisions up to the doctors? I hope not. How can the mere act of feeding a person be considered extraordinary?

We need to read those "living wills" carefully; so that we do not give someone too much choice over our own lives. Or we need to be clear, so that our families don't have to make these kinds of decisions, or have these kinds of disagreements.(emphasis Adam's)

This is so important, I would love to hear other opinions.

And the 3rd Question...

third, in reading the ligorian it discusses how the 6th commandment says not to commit adultery but that does not mean premaritial sex is wrong. since i also found that odd, i would like some other opinion on it too please.

2nd Question

second question, on one(true faith) podcast it discussed how the rapture as most people know it is not what the bible really says will happen. it discussed how wrong the left behind notion is. i was wondering everyones opinion on it.

New question-first of 3

In a discussion with someone they wanted to know why attending mass (or church) every week was required. the commandment only says keep it holy. what is the argument on that?

Vatican Councils Question

Anonymous said...
I had a discussion with a friend about the Church and he is convinced "some" of the Vatican Councils are flawed. I don;t know enough to know the difference. Can you help with this question?thanks!
April 21, 2008 7:19 AM

I find it impossible to address this. Many holy people have spent their entire lives researching and commenting on these Councils of the Church and this small space and my feeble thoughts and words are insufficient to the task.