Thanks be to God! Our common sense has been regained and we have restored what was lost and hidden from us. No better gift could be had than the healing of this division WITHOUT recrimination or blame.
It's REAL--Here' the Vatican press release in Italian--http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/23235.php?index=23235&po_date=23.01.2009&lang=en
and Vatican Radio in English--http://www.radiovaticana.org/en1/index.asp
Welcome back Brothers and Sisters and thank you for your witness to the Truth!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
follow up to Pastoral letter from Little Rock
and he labored and brought forth this....
http://www.dolr.org/bishop/pastoralimmigration_english.pdf
Wow! I cannot believe this...advocating this position is madness. I am not for depriving anyone of their human rights BUT THIS solution is nonsense. I am in favor of the Church being humane and treating everyone with respect, but I AM for enforcing the laws of the land. This has nothing to do with bringing Jesus to these immigrants, it is an economic circumstance that must be resolved in their own countries. If we fail to care for our own, we cannot help anyone beyond our borders. Even the Apostles were charged with taking the Gospel locally and then to the ends of the earth.
http://www.dolr.org/bishop/pastoralimmigration_english.pdf
Wow! I cannot believe this...advocating this position is madness. I am not for depriving anyone of their human rights BUT THIS solution is nonsense. I am in favor of the Church being humane and treating everyone with respect, but I AM for enforcing the laws of the land. This has nothing to do with bringing Jesus to these immigrants, it is an economic circumstance that must be resolved in their own countries. If we fail to care for our own, we cannot help anyone beyond our borders. Even the Apostles were charged with taking the Gospel locally and then to the ends of the earth.
To quote the Bishop...."We do support them being here illegally. They have a right to be here," he said. "We are here to serve everybody. Not just Catholics. We are not a country club. We are here to bring the love of Jesus to everybody. They are here because there is no way to get documents, not because they don't want documents. They do not want to immigrate without documents. ... You can't be obliged to do what you can't do. Immigration laws should correspond to the reality."
Wow!!!Lessee here Mr. Obama....
We are broke as a nation. Every single financial institution in the country is wailing like a banshee and bleeding red ink to the point that they might not survive and YOU want to make sure that Madonna does not adopt any more African Babies by sending US tax dollars to provide abortion to the Third World Countries? HMMMMM--to paraphrase SNL--"That don't sound good to me". Must have missed how we are going to PAY for this one without my taxes going up. Forget the immorality of the whole thing--uh--wait, that IS the point....anyway...BUT where do we get the $$$$???
Saturday, November 22, 2008
West TN Catholic article
I read an interesting article today in the West TN Catholic regarding the Bishop of Little Rock, Bishop Anthony Taylor. He is issuing a Pastoral letter about the human rights of "undocumented immigrants". The article says that he "believes that being able to migrate to another country is an intrinsic human right." He says that because it's virtually impossible for immigrants, predominantly from Mexico, to come to the United States legally, "You can't be obligated to do what you can't do". (I beg your pardon???)
I will be VERY interested to see this document when it's released. Advocating breaking the law of the United States is an interesting interpretation of the Gospel. Don't get me wrong, it's important to be compassionate. That said, I have to obey the laws of Mexico if I go there--why should the people who want to come here not obey OUR laws. I'm not sure that's what Jesus meant when he said"render unto Caesar what is Caesar's....
I will be VERY interested to see this document when it's released. Advocating breaking the law of the United States is an interesting interpretation of the Gospel. Don't get me wrong, it's important to be compassionate. That said, I have to obey the laws of Mexico if I go there--why should the people who want to come here not obey OUR laws. I'm not sure that's what Jesus meant when he said"render unto Caesar what is Caesar's....
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)