Friday, May 11, 2007

 

Senator Patrick Leahy's Response to the Pope

http://www.miamiherald.com/884/story/101826.html

When asked about the pope's comments regarding possible excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) had this to say: "I’ve always thought also that those bishops and archbishops who for decades hid pederasts and are now being protected by the Vatican should be indicted." Isn't it nice that Catholics have such nice representatives from the People's Republic of Vermont? What do you think about such remarks? Email me or post your comments to this blog.

Also, let Senator Leahy know what you think of them. His email address is as follows:

senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Comments:
As a non-Christian, let alone a non-Catholic, I find the whole discussion ridiculous. However, having grown up in the Phildelphia archdiocese, with the vast majority of my peers Catholic and open about their personal views of issues, I am forced to make one statement:

Your Eminence, stop talking about it. Either issue an edict to excommunicate any Catholic politician the breaks doctrine, or shut up about it.

I can respect a strong stand on a controversial issue. I can, even when I strongly oppose that stand. However, Senator Leahy's response is dead on correct: the Vatican's hypocrisy is glaringly open for all to see, and the only remedy for hypocrisy is its opposite.
 
Mr. Evans:

You are correct in saying that the Vatican should be more clear about issues like this and they have not always been. However, what bothers me about Sen. Leahy is his selective use of his faith. For instance, he has no problem along with others going to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or others to let them fundraise for him in their churches or has no problem quoting the Pope whenever he opposes US Immigration Policy or the Iraqi War. However, when the Pope says something like this he criticizes his interference. Does that bother you? It should even though you are a non-Christian. This policy he practices is called "Cafeteria Catholicism." To me, it is about as Logical as being a practicing "Cafeteria Lawyer." This means being an attorney who believes everything about his job except the part of his oath when he swears to zealously represent his client's interest and not overbill his clients. Don't you agree that someone like that should not be an attorney? The same applies to your identity as a Catholic. He should know that.
 
I have, if you will forgive me, a very cynical view of Catholic dogma. Please note my deliberate use of those two words. I have no axe to grind with Catholics or their faith. I do have a serious problem with their dogma.

My personal objections to dogma are really not the point, however. I mentioned above where I grew up, because I have listened to many Catholics agonize over simple moral choices under the pressure of sometimes arbitrary doctrinal stances by their priests. If there is going to be any level of criticism of "cafeteria" Catholics, it needs to start with those responsible for expressing the so-called unified faith.

It is not about faith, it is about politics and numbers. Catholicism is the worst of all the Christian sects at adapting with the changes of time and place. It is more interested in leading the faithful, than it is in educating them in their faith. "Believe this way," they say, "not because it makes sense, but because we, the experts, tell you to."

Ex cathedra is the term, I believe; doctrine by fiat, is another. In the modern world, where literacy is the rule and not the exception, a faith that tells its members things that are clearly contradictory is not one that can expect their members to uphold the doctrine, even the parts of it with which they are likely to agree.

I have learned, with some difficulty, that Catholics need to be left alone to work out their internal differences. I have also concluded, after several decades of observing them as their neighbor, that making disciplinary threats but never carrying them out is precisely what the worst sort of parent does, unless he really wants his children to be spoiled brats.

I will easily agree with you that Senator Leahy, one prominent example amongst many, is a spoiled brat. I will not, however, criticize the children when the parent is clearly the one at fault.
 
If the Vatican did start excommunicating people again, boy, would there be howling. I mean, it would be really amusing in a sense because all of a sudden people would realize that "HEY! The Catholic church was really 'up with the times' and being nice and now they're back to acting like they've been given the keys to the Kingdom, or something!"

But Mother Church cannot win by the rules of this world; she's either seen as crazy or drunk or demon-possessed (Mt. 11:18-19). That's the way it's gonna be.

But sometimes the sun breaks through the clouds. There have been many of those moments in my life. That's why I became Catholic -- the light overpowers the darkness. I feel bad for those who are not Catholic, or at least Christian. I didn't do anything to earn or deserve the gift of faith.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Talk Radio Links

Sites & Blogs

Magazines

Books


Other

 

Add to Google  
 
 
iPing-it! Amateur Catholic B-Team Member
What Kind of Reader Are You?
Your Result: Literate Good Citizen

You read to inform or entertain yourself, but you're not nerdy about it. You've read most major classics (in school) and you have a favorite genre or two.

Fad Reader
Dedicated Reader
Book Snob
Obsessive-Compulsive Bookworm
Non-Reader
What Kind of Reader Are You?
Create Your Own Quiz