Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,ArchMil
In every election, there are winners and losers. But after any election, no matter how disappointing or exhilarating the outcome, the work of governing the country becomes the priority and that means seeking the common good.
Christians are called to strive for those principles that come from the gospel. The goals of Christianity are beyond any political party or organization; instead, they are rooted in the teachings of the Church. The issues which were important for Catholics in the political campaign remain the important issues for all Catholics: the dignity of human life, concern for the poor, marriage being of one man and one woman, comprehensive immigration law and religious freedom[last?]. These are not campaign rhetoric or slogans, but rather stem from the Church’s care for the human person and society. We must continue to work and support these principles.
The Church throughout history has existed in various political and social climates. At times, it has been easier for the Church to function and, at other times, more difficult. Blessed John Paul II became a leading figure in the downfall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[whoa]. He did so not because it was a political goal but instead because the Gospel demanded Christian witness. He did so by challenging the government with the truth, and a firm belief in the power of faith. We must use John Paul II as an example in pursuing those issues that need to be addressed.
Today’s responsorial psalm says it all: “The Lord is my light and my salvation.” As we prepare to move forward as a country, we do so with prayers for our nation and its elected leaders committed to the founding principles that have made our nation great. But perhaps the words of St. Thomas More might be an appropriate reminder for all Catholics: “the king’s good servant, but God’s first.” His commandment is simple: LOVE ONE ANOTHER.
Abp. Listecki: Love One Another - After Any Election
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
So in other words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dr2OUe-KmE&feature=fvsr
ROFL!
Aaaakkkk! Another wussy statement.
@Steve, you couldn't be more accurrate. The Church's "gospel" has indeed been reduced to "be Excellent to another" and "party on". We've even been given Bills and Teds to preach it from the Cathedrae.
+Listecki is so very wrong. The Church's goal is the salvation of souls. And "Love one another" is NOT the first commandment. It is "Love God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your soul." All +Listecki does is continue to feed the self-righteousness of the social justice Catholics who think they can escape the Judgment with socialist actions.
Note very carefully that +Listecki does not point to following Benedict. Do I detect a little dissent there? I do have to commend +Listecki, though, on taking the approach of JPII: Does not +Listecki still permit the bronze tribute to Weakland to remain in front of the Altar in his cathedral as JPII allowed Weakland to preside at that same Altar?
I should make the point that originally I thought the title included "Love one another" but that is the name of his column. The actual article was just named "After Any Election." He closes all of his columns with the phrase.
Still he does bring up communist oppression talking about this election...
I might add that I was not meaning to quote Bill and Ted to rip on the Archbishop. "Love one another" is from Jesus, and I just think that video clip is a funny way to paraphrase.
let's be honest this is a strong (and good) statement, I can hardly imagine Archbishop Strich, Cousins, Weakland or Dolan "going there" with the soviet thing. Most conservative Bishop we've had here since Moses E. Kiley.
My comment was for Cassandra...
@Anonymous, No bishop should be "going there" with the Soviet thing. Overthrowing governments is not the Pope's job. If the hallmark of JPII's pontificate is that communist governments fell, then there is something wrong.
My firm belief is that when historians can look back unemotionally at JPII's pontificate (assuming we have a future to look back from), anything truly great will have Cardinal Ratzinger's fingerprints all over it.
Casandra, I 100% disagree on the first and mostly disagree on the second. St. Pius V?
Are you asking me if I'm sede vacantist?
Certainly not. In fact, the ability to look at a pope's record and confront the flaws honestly is a vaccine against sede vacantism.
The attitude among shallowly catechized, yet faithful catholics that somehow JPII could do no wrong is very similar to SV because refusing to look at real problems shows a devotion to the man, not the Office.
It's perfectly fine to have personal affection for JPII. I, myself, would concur that he was a nice, likeable guy. But using personal affection as a shield from embracing the warts is a shallow love.
It's also dangerous: JPII liked Fr Maciel personally and blocked Ratzinger from going after him.
So Badger, I'd like to see how you justify 100% disagreement with the first comment. I could see disagreement with parts, but all??
---The Church's goal is NOT the salvation of souls???
---Weakland's bronze tribute is NOT a scandal???
I 100% disagree with this "Overthrowing governments is not the Pope's job." The implication is that Pius V or any pope calling for crusades did so in vain. papal tiara?
Suggesting that anybody here has claimed Bl. JPII was perfect is a straw man argument. Of course he had problems. Everybody does. Yes, he liked Fr. Marciel. But it's not like he endorsed Fr. Maciel's shenanigans. If the Holy Father was guilty of something, it was of naivete--which no matter how severe is not an indictment of his sanctity or heroic virtue.
@Steve, I did not assert that anybody on the blog thinks JPII was perfect. I asserted "shallowly catechized" have frequent problems. Many times I've encountered strong emotional reactions to legitimate questions on his prudential judgments supported by reasoned arguments from the Church's patrimony. These are usually capped by accusations of disloyalty and sometimes sinfulness for raising the question. Funny how a reasoned argument is not offered.
Now, are you really sure you want to use "naivete" as a defense? I could really run with that, but I don't think you'd like where I'd go. I don't think though that you can offer that for a man that lived through Nazi occupied Poland, years under communist rule, years as a Cardinal, and many years as Pope before the Maciel accusations really gained traction.
I also don't think the JPII the Great advocates would go for it. The Great'ers would likely consider naivete a hit against his greatness. furthermore it's not really compatible with heroic virtue as it is tough to reconcile with Prudence; or for that matter growth in the Holy Spirit's gifts of understanding, counsel, and wisdom. I can't think of ANY saint that was ever considered *naive*, even young saints.
You have further difficulty. Charges were filed against Maciel as far back as 1998 with CDF but was "shelved". Now, considering that Benedict acted so relatively quickly against Maciel as Pope, it's a tough case to make that Ratzinger chose freely to "shelve" the case.
And don't you think that JPII would have been at least interested in what that investigation had against his friend Maciel? Naivete concerns an inexperience in one's own encounter with a situation. It would not be applicable to reading a report and/or findings of another. Ignoring or disbelieving any accusations is not naivete, but willful choosing.
I'd suggest you not try to defend the indefensible.
Are you suggesting that Pope JPII willingly and knowingly covered up Maciel's transgressions? And/or that the Church erred in ratifying him?
I'm saying we have to be prepared to confront the fact that JPII may have refused allow the investigation to run its proper course.
The CDF was responsible for the investigation by Ratzinger. Somebody shelved it. Ultimately, you have the choice of either JPII or Benedict. Benedict followed through. Where does that leave you? Now the wild card in this is that ++Sodano would also have likely played a role, but between Ratzinger and Sodano, JPII still has to play arbitrator.
As for the Church's declaration of his blessedness, that stops short of any infallible declaration. However, it is a great lesson in why the Church had insisted that investigations should wait a minimum of 5 years, which under pressure from the people Benedict waived. It was rushed contrary to the wisdom of the Church and canonization has stalled.
This is a long post so I want to wrap it up, but I'll end by saying that canonization of JPII will create a real struggle for me and others. Some people, perhaps even you, like to try to ignore pontifate difficulties by saying "but he was *personally* holy". I think it is impossible to separate "personal holiness" from how one executes one's vocation. Personal holiness must necessarily entail a unity with God's will. Yet is not a faithful execution of one's vocation also God's will for us? Therefore, any examination of JPII's personal holiness must include an examination of how he fulfilled his vocation as Pope, warts and all.
@Badger, you raise a good counter-argument, but I don't think it sticks.
Not exactly sure what you're asserting with Pius V, but Lepanto was a defensive engagement to protect Christendom. It did not extend to the overthrow of the Sultan. I'd have to delve into the details of each Crusade, but defensive action is the approach I would take.
You'll have to make your case about the papal tiara.
Now, if you want to make the case that JPII re-awakened Catholicism among the Poles; and that then these Poles overthrew the Polish government that's one thing; but it's not how the role is commonly presented, nor how +Listecki presented it.
It comes down to the dog wagging the tail; or the tail wagging the dog. Do you encourage and reinvigorate the Faith (a spiritual action) after which the laity takes political action, or do overthrow the government hoping the Faith will revive?
Frankly, the form of government is irrelevant to Catholicism (although unjust State laws are not). The early popes did not forment subversion against the Emperor and if I recall the early Fathers defended Catholicism against such accusations.
Casandra's got some kind of a chip on her shoulder, I am just going to ignore her from now on.
@Anonymous, The Anonymous masses usually do ignore me. It's nothing new.
Quite frankly, ignoring me is a whole lot easier than engaging the arguments I present. That requires *thinking*.
Post a Comment