Why is it that even when a diocese/bishop does the right thing, they have to bend over backwards to appear like they’re not? Case in point: In the Portland, Maine, diocese, a pro-abortion non-Catholic politician had his invitiation to speak at a Catholic parish rescinded. Sounds good so far. But then the diocese rushes to make it clear that he wasn’t dis-invited because of his pro-abortion views, but because of a blanket policy against any political candidates speaking on Church property during campaign season.
Why the rush away from the Church’s teaching on life? Why not just say, “We banned him because he supports the killing of innocent unborn life?” Sure, the diocese also says that it supports the policy adopted by the US bishops’ conference on not honoring “those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.” But instead they had to emphasize that this policy wasn’t active. Again, I ask why. Is it reluctance to be pro-life? Embarassment at the Church’s teaching? Whatever it is, it doesn’t do much to impress upon lay Catholics the importance of being visibly and publicly pro-life.
The diocese’s attitude reminds of the running joke on “Seinfeld” that when any of the characters mentioned he wasn’t gay, he’d add, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that,” which immediately waters down whatever was said before it.
I’m voting for Bush…not that I’m a Republican..er.. though there’s nothing wrong with that…I think…I guess…oh, I don’t know?
I believe it would be a mistake to vote for Kerry…not that there’s anything wrong with him…
“Again, I ask why.”
It might have something to do with the concern about the tax exempt status being challenged.
“Why the rush away from the Church’s teaching on life? “
The committment to Catholicism is weak.
“It might have something to do with the concern about the tax exempt status being challenged.”
Alfredo – It’s been said by others in this forum before, and I’ll say it also: If the choice comes down to defending Church teachings on abortion, contraception, stem cell research, etc., and retaining the Church’s long-standing tax exempt status, I say give up the latter and teach the Truth – Forcefully, clearly and consistently.
When bishops, priests, etc. start becoming more worried about taxes than about teaching eternal Truth, their priorities are dangerously amiss.
If these guys framed the issue more as one of “Your giving to the Church is helping to teach the Truth to all of God’s people”, or some such wording, I think they’d have fewer worries about fundraising.
Of course, that assumes that this is what our giving is actually doing, which today, at its very best, is highly debatable in many cases. That’s a separate issue, but it’s one that has to be addressed before they can make the “Giving for Truth” case.
The obvious answer to your question is that the “diocese” is not pro-life – except “personally.”
dest Proposal. It would seem that this is a good place to talk about that, no?
And Peter….I don’t think that C.S. Lewis would be Catholic today. He had no interest in becoming Catholic when he was alive, so I don’t think that he would today. Try reading or re-reading Mere Christianity….that solves your statement. Cheers!!
Cam
Sheila, do you really think they are starving to death????
Hey—pretty funny—-!!!!
Sorry, no what I mean is that we used to be Episcopalian and for years and years hated to leave our faith and suffered through so much nonsense.
From 1984 to 1998 we saw the attendance drop consistantly—despite changing doctrine to accomodate every victim group.