Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 5:04 AM By Juergensen
Too bad the USCCB can’t channel its fervor for religious freedom into preaching Humanae Vitae.
Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 7:58 AM By Angelo
Thats the way our Catholic leaders need to speak. I remember President Reagan’s constant reminder, “Government exists for the people, people do not exist for the Government.” Obama and those like him have broken the written law, they have violated our Contstitutional Rights. We should seek to impeach him. He was chosen to lead this Nation, not to nullify the Constitution. Impeach him or rather have him tried for treason against the American people.
Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 9:03 AM By perrywrinkle
Neither the sermon nor the comments deserve to be left out of today’s issue; neither would suffer from being included.
Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 9:23 AM By MacDonald
I’m sure you are all LOVING Bishop Brown of Orange for putting this sermon on his diocesan website!
Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 1:56 PM By Dana
Angelo, that is what I keep saying. He’s gone so far beyond anything any other president has attempted (way beyond Pres. Nixon) in overstepping his office, carrying out illegal and tyrannical acts, appointing people who are unqualified and/or dishonest (remember all those unpaid IRS back taxes, including those of the man in charge of our economy?) and his birth records have NOT been proven, despite the bogus birth certificate that wouldn’t bear even the most amateurish scrutiny. (for one thing it wasn’t even printed on paper or type used in the early sixties…whoever did it printed it on birth certificates used now) I think it may be because this country is so racist that they’re afraid they’ll be accused of wanting to impeach him because he is black (sort of). But again, I am off the subject, which was an excellent sermon, well thought out and beautifully presented. That is what ALL of us need to hear in our own diocese.
Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 2:22 PM By Catherine
MacDonald, There was once a foolish misguided ruler who set up his own kingdom of falsehoods and the entire kingdom suffered under his rule. Soon an even worse ruler named Obama came along and threatened to overrule the foolish ruler’s kingdom. The foolish ruler had forgotten who is the real King of Kings. Call it wisdom that stemmed from fear, call it grace that stemmed from prayer. Soon the foolish ruler let down the closed drawbridge to now once again welcome the truths that had been withheld from those living within the kingdom. MacDonald, The moral of the story is “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom!” Proverbs of Solomon “A fool finds pleasure in wicked schemes, but a person of understanding delights in wisdom.” “The righteous hate what is false but the wicked make themselves a stench and bring shame on themselves.”
Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 3:07 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Angelo, At this time, impeachment would take longer that DEFEATING him. I do believe however, that once he is defeated, he probably should be tried and convicted for Treason including fraud. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 4:57 PM By Abeca Christian
But Mr. Fisher the liberals would protect him at all cause. The Media and all. There are many highly influential liberals…too bad it takes money.
Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 5:17 PM By MacDonald
So, Catherine, I’m glad you are now loving Bishop Brown of Orange. It’s better for your soul — all that negativity was bad for you.
Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 5:43 PM By JonJ
I do find the formula “marriage is not for the government to redefine” an interesting expression. Does this phrase deny the right of the state to pass marriage laws? Does this mean that the definition of marriage is purely the province of each different church in the United States? Of course, if that were true, then the state would be compelled to recognize gay marriages from faith groups that recognize this practice such as the Anglican faith. Obviously, that is not what this phrase means. To make any sense of it, we must see it as support for the status quo, and an assertion that the government has no right to change some aspects of marriage eligibility once they have become established in law. Our law of marriage goes back to the very foundation of anglo saxon law in 1066 (the Norman conquest of England). In 1066, William ceded direct control over what we today would call family law and inheritance law to ecclesiactical courts. Thus, the “one man, one woman” rule came into anglo saxon law. Over the next 5 centuries the english crown grabbed more and more control over this area of law, culminating in Henry VIII’s break with the catholic church. Henry, of course, did not change the “one man, one woman” rule, and this provision continued on into the 18th. 19th and 20th centuries. At this point, various US states joined the union, and almost all of them adopted the common law of england up to their join date as their state precedent. Thus, our anglo saxon law of marriage goes back to its foundation in 1066 by catholic eccelsiastical courts in England. Thus, this phrase says that “the Cathloc church defined marriage in anglo saxon law in 1066 and it cannot be changed. No other religious group as any freedom to ever define marriage, or have any say in the definition of marriage ever again.” This is a pretty ironic assertion coming from a sermon about religious freedom.
Posted Monday, May 21, 2012 5:49 PM By JonJ
Of course the phrase “marriage is not for governments to redefine” could mean that marriage comes from God. However, since every religion has, at its core, a different idea about the will of God, then how is the state to decide the will of God? I presume that any religion that accepts gay marriage can’t have it right. Is Fr. Heath asserting that the Catholic Church has a right of veto over any legislation that has a religious impact, since only the Catholic Church has competence to determine the will of God? Again, this is a somewhat odd phrase to find in a tract about religious freedom.
Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:15 AM By Loraine
God bless Father Heath for his courage. I’m glad to hear that our Bishop has allowed the sermon to be posted on the Diocesan Website but it’s too little too late, in my opinion. If Catholics in my diocese, and other U.S. Dioceses had been regularly hearing from the pulpit about church teaching on contraceptive use, abortion, etc, maybe, just maybe Obama wouldn’t be in the White House to begin with. In the Orange Diocese we had two well known priests donate money to the Obama campaign in 2008. Both priests are well known. One is a Monsignor and the other is well known on You Tube for dressing up as Barney, at Mass. In the last twenty years, in the Diocese of Orange, I’ve only heard maybe three or four sermons on the evils of contraceptive use, and two of those sermons was from a Norbertine priest. Not many diocesan priests in this diocese will touch the subject with a ten feet pole. I hope to hear more of these kinds of sermons from our priests, I hope Father Heath will inspire other priests by his sermon.
Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:35 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JonJ, Have you ever heard the term “Kingship of God” or “Whatever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven”. The more I read of your comments the more I am convinced that you are either not Catholic or a Cafeteria Catholic. I join Lorraine in her praise of Fr. Heath, and I am going to call him soon. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:55 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Abeca, 4:57 PM, I agree, but we still must work towards that purpose. Onward Soldiers of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and Viva Cristo Rey! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 3:01 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Since I know of too many priests in the Diocese of Orange who have been crucified because of their orthodoxy, I am pleased to read that Fr. Heath’s excellent homily has been placed on the Diocesan Website, let us hope and pray that Bishop Brown will do even more to undue the damage he has already done in the Diocese. Contact Father Heath and thank him for his courage. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:38 PM By JonJ
Kenneth, I just get annoyed when the Church pretends to care about religious freedom. It doesn’t. Why not be truthful about it? The Church wants to use state power to compel citizens to behave as it sees fit within certain perameters, and it doesn’t care about religious freedom unless its used as a shield against some other group’s attempt to use state force. It seems the Church’s idea of religious freedom is to use state force to make people behave in conformity to catholic faith as much as they can achieve in light of political limitations, and then use “religious freedom” to defend the Church’s perogatives once they win them. Instead, I believe in minimalism when it comes to utilizing state force; as little as we can use to allow people freedom to choose God. I also believe that Christ’s ministry while on earth is consistent with this policy, since Christ showed great restraint in refraining from using his omnipotence: to the point where He allowed the Pharisees and Romans to nail Him to a cross.
Posted Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:52 PM By JonJ
Kenneth, “Kingship of God” is not something that can be achieved on earth. St. Augustine told us this in “City of God, City of Man”. Augustine wrote that it is sheer hubris to think we can achieve the City of God on earth, thus a man of god can still be a good citizen of the CIty of Man, even if it does not have rules that are entirely consistent with Catholic faith. We must focus on the next life, rather than trying to achieve the City of God on earth. Of course Christ himself proclaimed, “I am not a King” and it is Christ example that human being should follow. If we attempt to act as a proxy for God the Father, we get draconian and cruel rules like we find in Leviticus and Dueteronomy (such as commanding the Jews to slaughter entire populations if they do not worship the right God, or executing a female rape victim if they did not manage to scream for help).
Posted Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:32 AM By JonJ
Kenneth, In the year 2000, Pope JP 2 offered an apology for 2000 years of wrongdoing by the Church–including the inquisition, the crusades, anti-semitism, massacres of French protestants, improper treatment of native peoples in the new world, conversion by the sword (particularly in the crusades of eastern europe), and the mass conversions performed by clerics in the new world. Presumably, since JP was apologizing for these behaviors, he recognized that the Church, and many of its members, had participated in wrongdoing. Consequently, it follows that a “good” Catholic would have been required to DISOBEY Church authority in these circumstances and to speak out about the evils of his time.Thus, to be a good catholic, we are forced to pick and choose even among what our Church tells us is right at any given time according to our own wisdom and conscience. Therefore Kenneth, in light of this reality, the perjoritive “cafeteria catholic” hardly seems to be the evil that you seem to believe.
Posted Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:26 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JonJ, 4:32 AM, If I am not mistaken, it is a FACT that Pope John Paul II himself used the term “cafeteria catholic” in a pejoritive way when he spoke to the American Hierarchy. If the shoe fits, wear it. Many, feel that Pope John Paul II went way overboard in his frequent apologies for something, if it did happen, we are not responsible for at all. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:37 PM By JonJ
Gosh Kenneth, are you picking and choosing which statements of JP2 to respect? I thought you were supposed to accept Church Authority in its entirety, and not “pick and choose” according to your own judgment. Kenneth, can you make the argument that a “good catholic” would choose to torture heretic suspects or toss the flame onto Joan of Arc’s pyre? Tell me how a “good” catholic decides to point a sword at someone and tell them that if they don’t become a catholic they will be run through? (which happened in eastern european crusades). I do seem to recall that JP did use that term as you say. However, that doesn’t mean JP realized the logical implications of his apology. I also can understand it with respect to “infallible doctrine”. However, the church’s admitted mistakes almost always seem to occur in devising a policy to apply doctrine to a particular situation (such as allowing torture and execution to be used in a response to heresy; the church could very well be right about the heresy, but very wrong in its response to it). Or, perhaps Kenneth, you would like to make the argument that heretics deserved to die.
Posted Thursday, May 24, 2012 3:54 PM By JLS
JonJ, just as the Kingdom of God is in you, and here now and not yet, so the City of God. The Catholic is obliged and commanded to rid himself of the City of Man and develop the City of God within. If you read more of St Augustine you’ll see that he trounced your direction leading to lack of union between God and man. There are different applications of this heresy, but it can be called Airhead Catholicism. Many juicy novels and movies have been written to entertain such disembodied souls. Some say Christ never died on the Cross, some say His body only died … and so forth, as there are lots of variations that depart from the reality which the Church teaches in Her basic doctrine. You, JonJ, keep trying to justify various escapes from reality … ask yourself why.
Posted Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:58 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JonJ, I happen to believe that certain members of the Church did great damage to the Body of Christ by trying to force persons to become Catholics. The only true conversions, and that is what I am praying you will receive, come from the heart. The view in that time was that heretics endangered the General Order and had to be eliminated. Since I did not live in those times, I will not attempt to judge them, but you sure seem to be more than willing to judge the Church that you actually seem to hate. God have mercy on your soul, Kenneth M. Fisher