Get it now at Amazon, Company Man: My Jesuit Life, 1950-1968.
Get it now at Amazon, Company Man: My Jesuit Life, 1950-1968.
Note also this at end of story:
Meanwhile, a Catholic school in Macon, Ga., is facing a federal discrimination lawsuit from a former teacher whose employment was terminated in 2014 after the school found that he would be legally marrying his same-sex partner, the Cardinal Newman Society reported.
When gummint comes knocking, don’t open your door. Maybe you’ll get away with it, but probably not.
Mere blocks from Bryn Mawr red line stop, arguably more Catholic than the Pope.
Play that “Hail, holy Queen,” a.k.a Salve Regina, on this page, and be returned, all ye Romans of a certain age, to the religious experience of your youth.
And be introduced, you others of any past experience, to classical beauty in a sacred place.
This is a watershed moment for the church, for humanity and for the planet, which Pope Francis calls our common home. It’s time for the church to be bold — to speak about major issues — and to achieve a new level of relevance in people’s lives.
Missed this at the time, but wow. Second only to the coming Day of the Lord.
That “new level of relevance” too. Higher and higher with our relevance factor.
— Note: It’s how public people talk that gets me, as in my coming book, Illinois Blues: Democrat politicking at Town Hall Meetings in Oak Park IL. —
Editor of Catholic New World in Chicago receives CPA’s Bishop John England Award on behalf of late Cardinal George
Joyce Duriga, editor of the Catholic New World in Chicago, receives the annual Bishop John England Award June 24 from Timothy Walter, executive director of the Catholic Press Association, on behalf of the late Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago. The cardinal, who died earlier this year, was recognized “for distinguished service in exercising and defending the First Amendment rights of Catholic newspapers,” during the 2015 Catholic Media Conference in Buffalo, N.Y. (CNS photo/Karen Callaway, Catholic New World)
He regularly addressed issues of religious freedom in his column for the Catholic New World. These columns were often reprinted in diocesan newspapers around the country and regularly received more than 10,000 page views on the Catholic New World website.
In a recent interview with the Catholic New World he talked about his concern for religious liberty. “. . . it’s a subject I’ve been studying for a long time because, as I went around the world when I was vicar general of the Oblates, I often found places where people aren’t free to practice their faith,” Cardinal George said. “It is a little frightening when you’re confronted with that possibility in your own country, which I never thought would be the case, but it is.” [italics added]
Now how often do you hear that from a Catholic bishop? About not being free to practice one’s faith.
It would have been nice to read this in the Catholic New World, which is to be commended for giving the award as such good play on its web site. I mean to explain why he was judged a defender of the First Amendment.
Even a link to the CNW’s 2013 tribute to George as a religious-freedom advocate would have supplied the lack. Otherwise, there’s a slight hole in its coverage of this posthumous honor.
“The strange situation in the United States is [that] clergymen not only act in the name of the church, they also act in the name of the state,” said [Rev. Patrick Henry] Reardon, the pastor of All Saints Antiochian Orthodox Church in Chicago’s Irving Park community.
“The clergymen wear two hats. I’m making a political statement in this sense: I’m accusing the state of usurping the role of God. What I’m saying is, ‘I don’t agree with you and I’m going to change the way I do things. I will not act in your name. … I will not render unto Caesar that which belongs to God.'”
Nicely stated, clearly a protest vs. constitutionalization of same-sex “marriage” by the highest court in the state.
One prelate addressed the protest angle directly: Nothing doing.
Bishop Demetrios of Mokissos, chancellor of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Chicago, said he doesn’t foresee such a boycott in Chicago. He even questions whether it’s legal.
“I can’t imagine any of our priests doing that,” he said. “It hasn’t happened yet and I don’t anticipate it happening to make a political statement,” he said.
Another, Archbishop Blase Cupich, said the Reardon strategy had “not come up” among either bishops nationally or Chicago priests,
but he pointed out that a “two-tiered type of marriage” already exists in some places, including Europe. Regardless of who signs the license, he added, there’s already a clear distinction between [civil and Catholic marriage] in the U.S.
“Civil marriage doesn’t make people promise and [require they] keep the promise of permanence because of the ease of divorce,” Cupich said. “We ask people to be married until death do you part and we really mean that. … It’s important to recognize we already have a difference between civil marriage and church marriage because of the promises.”
Good point, of course. The two are different. But his “regardless of who signs the license” is a dismissal of the Reardon plan, which is not surpising.
Ancient worldwide institutions don’t usually fool with stuff like that. And archbishops don’t encourage it, especially in Chicago, where lay people and priests are probably split on the whole same-sex issue.
Or so it seems at times . . .
Fr. Robert Barron does this up nicely. It’s about the ability to see something as one thing, not another, in effect to love a sinner (he does not speak of sin) while deploring the sin:
What strikes me so often as I listen to the public conversation regarding moral issues is the incapacity of so many to make the right distinctions.
Some of the muddiest water surrounds the concepts of love/ hate and tolerance/intolerance. In the spirit of Sokolowski, I would like to make what I hope are some clarifying differentiations.
He does so, along the way noting the phlosophical roots of this inability (low in his column):
Once the sense that there is objective good and evil has been attenuated [reduced to not much at
all], as it largely has been in our society, the only categories we have left are psychological [I’d specify
emotional] ones. And this is why, in the minds of many, to question the moral legitimacy of transgenderism [which he did in an earlier column] is, perforce, to “attack” or “hate” transgendered people.
He commends two Princeton profs, one of them the battled-scarred Cornel West, the other the The Conservative-Christian Big Thinker Robert George, for recently debating intelligently
regarding same–sex marriage, West arguing for and George against. What was so refreshing was that both men, who are good friends, actually argued, that is to say, marshalled evidence, drew reasoned conclusions from premises, answered objections, etc., and neither one accused the other of “hating” advocates of the rival position. May their tribe increase.
Originally posted on Blithe Spirit:
Just four days after the Supreme Court’s decision, a Montana man drove up to the Yellowstone County Courthouse and applied for a marriage license for multiple wives. When the office turned him down, he said, what about marriage equality? “We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family,” Nathan Collier told reporters. “All we want is legal legitimacy… We just want to give our marriage and our family the legitimacy that it deserves.”
If the Supreme Court got it right, and whether they did or not, Mr. Collier has his point. It’s “exactly the same argument homosexuals made — and five justices ultimately endorsed,” says Famiiy Research Council’s Tony Perkins.
In the words of the Holy Father, who are we to judge?
Meanwhile, following yesterday’s Matthew 8, we have today’s verses 8 and following, and the Gadarene swine, who paid a high price for being too close to demons. (Were sent tumbling into the sea, where they perished.)
Lesson here for us all. Whatever we mean by demons, the farther away the better.
In Matthew 8.23-27, Jesus wakes up in the boat to the cries for help of his disciples, chides them for their lack of faith, and then “rebuked” the wind and waves, who entered on a “profound calm.”
This is Jesus meek and humble of heart whom we prayed to as kids in the ’40s? Or is that Jesus the product of zealous preaching of one kind in reaction to another kind?
In either case, we have here Jesus as Matthew remembered him, speaking with authority, being anything but meek and humble in ordinary sense. He spoke and acted with authority, was a man of strength, a leader of men.
Personally, I’ve had enough of the meek and humble Jesus in my life as to make him inhuman and distant, which is why I find myself taken with him as, face it, an authority figure, which he was — someone I can respect and look up to and obey.