Thank you for inviting me to speak on the feast of the Sacred Heart and so ensuring that I was in the United States for the feast of the Sacred Heart when the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade judgement and struck such a blow for human life. The forces of truth and judgement haven’t enjoyed such a victory for many decades. While it doesn’t compare with the collapse of the Iron Curtain, the fall of Communism in Europe in 1989, or the lifting of the Islamic siege of Malta in 1565, it’s still a remarkable victory.
It’s due to prayers, the politics, and wisdom of the pro-life forces over nearly 50 years. When you are in the midst of a struggle you are keenly aware of the losses, the scandals, the drifting away for the faith of family and friends, and sometimes you don’t realize how well you are doing comparatively in these difficult times.
In many ways the Catholic Church in the U.S., with all your imperfections, you remain the model of the best example of classical Catholicism confronting modernity. And as an outsider, I congratulate and thank you for your achievements.
The lessons of the Roe v. Wade victory are clear. We must remain in the public square as a regular participant in public discussion and debate, and we must use our democratic rights to defend ourselves and especially to defend religious freedom.
The above comes from a digression made by Australia’s Cardinal George Pell in his homily at the June 30 votive Mass of Blessed Sacrament at the Sacra Liturgia conference held at St. Patrick’s seminary in Menlo Park this week.
The digression lasts from 33:37 to 36:00 on the YouTube video.
If only the Cardinals Quisling (Cupich, McElroy, Gregory and Tobin) could see with Cardinal Pell’s clarity and be as courageous as he is. It is too bad he is too old to vote in the next papal conclave. A coworker, who grew up in dire poverty in another country, once asked me why Americans born here seem to hate our country so much. Of course, we’re not perfect, but our bishops should be speaking out loudly and clearly about life, religious liberty, so-called “Catholic” leaders and the open and even “celebrated” abuse of gender confused children. Why are they so afraid? Have they no fear of God? Happy Fourth of July. May we heed the words of Franklin and keep our republic.
….. contrast Cardinal Pell’s profound statement on the Right to Life with Solar Panel McElroy’s missive at the 2019 USCCB conference in Baltimore: “… It is not Catholic teaching that abortion is the pre-eminent issue that we face in the world of Catholic social teaching. It is not”.
Find a church document that says that abortion is the pre-eminent issue that we face in the world of Catholic social teaching.
Prove him wrong.
uh…the Bible? Spit hairs much? Love God, Love neighbor…*the* way to salvation. The most efficient and principal way to deny love of neighbor and offend God is by interrupting His creation of the human person, made higher than the angels in His Incarnation.
Do you really need the Church to declare a dogma on the issue to see the Truth in that? I guess some folks needed a dogmatic declaration on the Trinity, so if you need one, maybe one might be coming…meantime…do some reading….
The question being discussed is not whether abortion is the pre-eminent issue. It is whether there is a Catholic teaching that it is.
I assume since no one has come up with it, there isn’t.
I have found a document by the US bishops which says that abortion and euthenasia are the pre-eminent threats to human dignity. If anyone cares.
“…the smoke of Satan has entered…..”
What would you say is the pre-eminent isue that we face in the world of Catholic social teaching? Give us a hint as to what you believe is more important.
Father Higgins, there is no pre-eminent issue that we face according to Catholic social teaching. This is why we teach the primacy of conscience. How does one weigh the murder of a fetus against the mass extermination of Ukrainians, preceded by rapes and tortures? I wouldn’t want to make that judgement.
If we are blinded to parts of Catholic teaching, we become heretics. This is taught from the early Church fathers from the second century onward. I think the Pope (and some Bishops) are trying to suggest that we can’t be all about ONE social mandate, and elevate it above all else, when we must be about all of them. This is especially true since the teaching that holds that human life begins at conception is very new in the Church, and was clearly doubted by Thomas and many excellent sources since. How is it that something Thomas did not hold as an issue is now the pre-eminent issue?
And please don’t go on about climate. Climate was not a moral issue in Thomas’ time. Embryonic life was.
“Father Higgins, there is no pre-eminent issue that we face according to Catholic social teaching. This is why we teach the primacy of conscience.” I’m sorry YFC, but I read two ideas in this one sentence that have no logical or moral connection whatsoever. If there is no pre-eminent issue that we face as Catholics, a possibility still remains that all issues are of equal importance. If so, then there is no primacy of conscience whereby judgments are made on which issues are accepted and which rejected. But then alternatively perhaps no issues are important, since none is pre-eminent. Then freedom of conscience rules, but Catholic ethics is out. Our we could start from the premise of the primacy of conscience. Then individuals decide for themselves what determines their actions. But this implies there are pre-eminent issues shaping the will, contrary to Catholic social teaching (as you think it). Then your contrasting abortion with Ukrainian deaths fails, since both are atrocities associated with fifth commandment violations. Or perhaps murder is not a pre-eminent concern in Catholic social teaching. Please let me know if this is your point of view.
YFC, you are misusing and misunderstanding the primacy of conscience. That is not a part of Catholic Social Teaching.
There are nonnegotiables in Catholic social teaching. 1) the protection of human life from conception, or opposition to abortion; 2) natural marriage between one man and one woman as the only acceptable definition of marriage, or opposition to gay marriage; 3) opposition to euthanasia; 4) opposition to transgenderism; 5) opposition to human cloning; 6) opposition to stem cell research.
Democrats support all six things that Catholics must oppose.
Therefore a Catholic cannot vote for a Democrat without sinning.
This list is not from the Catholic Church.
Look at #1, #2, #4 and #6.
i do not know if you are young or you have entered the struggle after the age of the Internet but you need to really learn Catholic Social Teaching and also improve your learning on its moral teaching.
You can do better. Just spend a quarter of an hour a day with the Catechism and with the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
I am not trying to influence how you vote. I don’t care if you vote or not.
Be a better Catholic by learning about what the Church really teaches.
I am not insulting you. I am encouraging you to use the proper sources. There is a partial indulgence for doing this as well.
God bless you and may the Holy Spirit guide you to all Truth.
CC 1792: Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
The only conscience you can depend on, is a properly formed conscience. That mean one that does not choose the things listed above.
I do not know who you are addressing.
For me, human life and dignity is number one.
I never vote for a pro-choice candidate.
Perhaps, easypeasy, you have ignored the guidance of the Vatican and the US Bishops that pro-choice doesn’t nix a candidate. It is their overall record we are asked as Catholics to consider.
I have never seen anything that said to consider a candidates overall record. Please give a source.
The sanctity of life is foundational to our Faith. We are made in the image and likeness of God, and as such we are compelled, by the nature He bestowed on us, to afford dignity to human life which comes from Him. Without life,(shelter, food, clothing, money) none of it matters. So praising God comes first, then defending the life he has given. You may think you are doing lots of good works in the name of social justice, but unless you do them for the glory of God, they are of no value; just a meaningless feather in your cap. All things come from Him. Nothing we do will ever deserve what he has done for us. He gives his love freely.
The Church is America is fine except for all those Democrat fake Catholics.
Yes, I encounter them regularly. They have voted Democrat because their parents and grandparents did. When confronted about Catholic social teaching (ie abortion) they say “I don’t mix my religion with politics”. I remind them that the same was true of German Catholics in 1930. They sputter a bit, if they know what I’m talking about, but some don’t even know what that means. And so they go on talking about how wonderful Gavin and Nancy are.
I had a relative who never went to Church again after a preacher told him how to vote.
I put my kid through Catholic school and college (Newman list). He was never taught Catholic Social Teaching.
40 years ago, we had a pastor who tried to get the parish more interested in it. It upset people. They did not want to hear about it.
It was considered political and they did not want that at church.
I have encountered it usually in a publication.
It was called Social Justice back then.
The Church in America is fine, except for all of those capital punishment loving Republican fake Catholics.
What punishment would you agree to, as a juror, for gunmen who have killed and severely injured multitudes of people, including children, at mass shootings, such as in Uvalde, Texas, and Chicago, Illinois?
The Fifth Commandnent, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” We can find this topic, in our Catechism, starting at CCC #2258. And we also can start with the same subject, at Question #1276, in the Baltimore Catechism #3. Question #1276 is startling, as it states: “Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?” We are no longer used to thinking in these terms. However, we are currently living in a shockingly violent society, in which horrific crimes of mass murders are increasing! God desires the salvation of every soul. And that is why the Pope changed our Catechism. Ancient and medieval saints and scholars found their answers in the Bible. They all believed that there are some very limited cases, found in the Bible– in which a person’s death is shockingly called for– even by God! But we are not used to that way of thinking, today. We do not live in the kind of rough, hardly-civilized, more dangerous societies, of Biblical times. Or do we?? Praying for those cruelly, senselessly shot, wounded and killed today, on the 4th of July, in Highland Park– and their grieving families. Our poor America!
Beware! You do not want to arouse the “Living Magisterium” man. Everyone here will be made miserable by his rantings. Poor us!
That’s all you got? LOL
BTW Capital punishment is endorsed by the Bible.
Yes, the Bible endorses capital punishment, for particular limited situations. But Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Francis believe that in today’s society, we have improved much, beyond the barbaric days of previous eras, including Biblical eras. Capital punishment can now be discarded, as unnecessary, cruel, and wrong. And Pope Francis changed the Catechism. But is this a good thing? Is the Pope “too soft on crime?” I am so horrified by all the gun massacres, in today’s society. I am so used to strong, manly popes of the past, good discipline, and moral absolutes– and a “no nonsense,” decent religion and society that you can count on! I tried to briefly state my ideas, otherwise, the comment would be too long.
Perhaps you just used a word wrongly. But saying the Bible endorses capital punishment indicates that you do not understand the Bible or the word endorse.
Want someone to start quoting chapter and verse? Try reading Genesis 9:6, for starters. These cases are found mainly in the Old Testament. In total, the Old Testament specifies 36 capital offenses, for crimes such as idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, adultery, homosexual acts, murder, etc. In the Old Testament, there are also cases in which God specified the deaths of enemies to the Jews. And remember when God sent the Flood, and cleansed the earth? Only Noah and his family survived. The Old Testament times were rough– and the Jewish Law was pretty hard.
You may have meant “validates” or “supports”?
Endorse is the wrong word.
What do you think of Genesis 9:6?
That’s true, “supports” or “validates” sounds a lot better, to me. BTW– Genesis 9:6 has a very clear, hard message. And the old Jewish Law was pretty tough! Capital punishment was prescribed, for many sins!
All of Scripture is the Word of the Lord.
I actually am not for capital punishment, I am just upset at the many mass murders we now have in our society.
This is the same Pell who spoke heresy in 2015 when he publicly denedi the existence of Adam and Eve on ABC.
Inquisitor Max, do you know how to find out what he really said? I found that he referred to the story as myth. To describe something as a myth in religious terminology is not the same as its meaning in popular usage, which means not true or false. Did he deny monogenesis? (That would be heresy, as we’re all part of the one human family.) Another example would be a term like “cult,” where the Church’s meaning is far from the “cult”ure’s. I wouldn’t trust ABC’s reporting of a theologian’s nuanced remarks, especially those of a bishop. The stories I found did not say he denied their existence, rather that it was mythological.
If you are referring to calling it a myth I think it was Lewis who said a myth is a story that is more than true, truer at a deeper level than the mere historical. He also noted that the Christian myth is the perfect myth because it is also historically true.
A myth is an origin story.
That would be an etiological myth.
This is the same “classically-minded” Pell who publicly denied the existence of Adam and Eve on television in 2015.
The quote is wrong in the text and the subtitle.. He said “the best example of Gospel Catholicism.”
Cardinal Pell is a blessing and prayers were answered when he was vindicated and released from jail. He speaks as a true Catholic leader when he celebrates the Roe decision. When we are exposed to the likes of Cupich, McElroy, Gregory and Tobin and such bishops, it is such a breath of fresh air! God Bless you Cardinal Pell!