Ask the Cardinal Mahoney a question...

[Era Might]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Apr 5 2006, 12:33 AM']I tend to agree that he doesn't stand out for his knowledge of theology/liturgy.  For example, he writes that the New Roman Missal was a step which "Moved us beyond" Latin in the liturgy."  In reality, the Vatican II documents encourage the preservation of Latin in the liturgy of the Roman Rite.

I'm also trying to figure out what he meant when he wrote, "For a small slice of Church history, Latin was the language of Mass."  Could a millenium and a half properly be considered a small slice? 
[right][snapback]936130[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yah, that struck me as well. Anyone with any nuanced knowledge of Sacrosanctum Concilium knows that it called for the retention of Latin. You would never hear something like that from Ratzinger, who would dissect the post-Conciliar renewal ten ways from Sunday. But even here, Mahoney says that we should "bring with us our Latin hymns". Again, I think he just sees it as, "Yah, these are nice, and our people like this now and again". His intent isn't to destroy Latin and what not; he just thinks that's not what the people need. And like I said, I think that may go back to his lack of theological depth. He's genuinely worried about he people, but his zeal is misguided, so to speak.

[Socrates]

Mahoney sounds like a politician - he rattles off many words which say nothing.

Note how he deflects questions about the sexual abuse which he covered up, with empty "holy talk."
[quote]Ken T: I know that the sexual abuse issues are difficult for you.  Can you comment on the recent large Franciscan settlement?  And do you think that the worst of this behind the Church?....We thank you for helping "Roll Back the Stone" and the courage to heal all involved.
CardinalMahony: Everyone of us wants to bring about full healing and reconciliation with all victims of sexual abuse, and I applaud the Franciscans for moving forward.  We need to continue our efforts as well, and I look forward to the day when all of the cases are settled and the process of healing is underway.

Moderator: From Nancy Estrada: "As Catholics, we feel attacked by other religions and by former Catholics who no longer belong to any Church on the subject of molestations by priests. How can we defend our religion and how can we encourage them to return to the faith again? That is my question and thanks for your time."

CardinalMahony: Our best approach is to live out our individual lives as disciples of Jesus, become more humble and faithful.
CardinalMahony: The Church was built upon human beings, and we are all weak and sinners.  The good news is that Jesus is always with us to correct us and keep us on the right path forward.[/quote]

And this gem:
[quote][b]Bill: Some of the scheduled speakers at this Religious Education Congress are well-known dissenters of our Catholic Church teachings.  Why are they repeatedly invited back to the Congress and why are those who are requesting a closer monitoring of these speakers and asking for 100% orthodoxy being ignored?
CardinalMahony: I simply don't agree with Bill.[/b][/quote]
In the conference refered to here, "the good Cardinal" invited various pro-homosexual, pro-immorality, pro-abortion, radical feminist, and New Age speakers to lecture to religious educators.

Mahoney had no answer concerning this outrage.

Yet we are told by the libs here that to question Mahoney on immigration issues is to go against the Church. Are we to agree with him on everything else too?

[Jaime]

[quote]Yet we are told by the libs here that to question Mahoney on immigration issues is to go against the Church. Are we to agree with him on everything else too?
[/quote]

I believe this is a straw man argument kids.


and, its a lame one.

Edited April 6, 2006 by jaime

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 5 2006, 06:30 PM']Note how he deflects questions about the sexual abuse which he covered up, with empty "holy talk."
And this gem:

In the conference refered to here, "the good Cardinal" invited various pro-homosexual, pro-immorality, pro-abortion, radical feminist, and  New Age speakers to lecture to religious educators.

Mahoney had no answer concerning this outrage.[right][snapback]937031[/snapback][/right][/quote]
Well, to be honest, the guy's question was poorly formed. If he wanted to be answered, he shouldn't have been vague. He should have identified those whom he considered "well-known dissenters of our Catholic Church teachings." He neither named them nor did he identify the dissenting opinions that they held. Sadly, the Cardinals response to this guy's accusation was completely appropriate.

A word to the wise: do your homework before presenting an accusation.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 5 2006, 06:11 PM']I believe this is a straw man argument kids. 
and, its a lame one.
[right][snapback]937061[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No, it merely shows that using Mahoney's authority as an argument ("how dare you contradict the Good Cardinal!") is a weak one.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Apr 5 2006, 08:22 PM']Well, to be honest, the guy's question was poorly formed.  If he wanted to be answered, he shouldn't have been vague.  He should have identified those whom he considered "well-known dissenters of our Catholic Church teachings."  He neither named them nor did he identify the dissenting opinions that they held.  Sadly, the Cardinals response to this guy's accusation was completely appropriate.

A word to the wise: do your homework before presenting an accusation.
[right][snapback]937195[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[quote]The April 8, 2000 Los Angeles Religious Education Conference, a major West Coast event in Roger Cardinal Mahoney's diocese, featured a band of heterodox speakers including CTA regulars Fathers Patrick Brennan and Michael Crosby, sociologist Fr. Andrew Greeley (notorious for his salacious novels), Sr. Barbara Fiand who was restricted from teaching seminarians at Cincinnati's Atheneum because of her bad theology, Sr. Elizabeth Johnson who denies Church teaching on ordination, Fr. Richard Rohr who officiated at a lesbian "wedding," etc., etc.[/quote]

[ironmonk]

Mahony is a prime example of a star taken out of the sky by the dragon's tail... 1/3 of clergy will go bad in the end days... Why is it so hard for some people to get this?


Thank God he's not my Cardinal.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 5 2006, 10:45 PM']No, it merely shows that using Mahoney's authority as an argument ("how dare you contradict the Good Cardinal!") is a weak one.
[right][snapback]937243[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Obviously you aren't familiar with the Straw Man Fallacy

Let me give an example

Person A : Socrates believes that sodomites promote immoral activity
Person B: Yes but Socrates believes that Mickey Mouse is a sodomite so clearly he's a loony. Therefore I disregard everything that he says


See person B is distorting the argument and isn't actually arguing the main point.

Just like you did.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 5 2006, 10:54 PM']Obviously you aren't familiar with the Straw Man Fallacy

Let me give an example

Person A : Socrates believes that sodomites promote immoral activity
Person B: Yes but Socrates believes that Mickey Mouse is a sodomite so clearly he's a loony.  Therefore I disregard everything that he says
See person B is distorting the argument and isn't actually arguing the main point.

Just like you did.
[right][snapback]937268[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


If this were a simple secular subject type call, you would be right.

But it's not... it has to do with faith and guidence... and Mahony is going against other Catholic Bishops and the Catechism... So this is not a fallacy, it is a fact that Mahony's judgements cannot be trusted because he goes against what is taught from the Magisterium.

You focus to much on the seen instead of paying attention to the unseen... aka spiritual... flawed moral judgement is big according to the Scriptures... maybe if you read them more, you would know this.

He's still a Cardinal... but he's a fallen star.

[Jaime]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 5 2006, 11:12 PM']If this were a simple secular subject type call, you would be right.

But it's not... it has to do with faith and guidence... and Mahony is going against other Catholic Bishops and the Catechism... So this is not a fallacy, it is a fact that Mahony's judgements cannot be trusted because he goes against what is taught from the Magisterium.

You focus to much on the seen instead of paying attention to the unseen... aka spiritual... flawed moral judgement is big according to the Scriptures... maybe if you read them more, you would know this.

He's still a Cardinal... but he's a fallen star.
[right][snapback]937302[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No I focus on scripture and the teachings of the Church. I've backed up my defense of Mahoney with both. You, on the other hand asked to be corrected. When you were shown your error according to the Catechism, you refused to acknowledge it.

[Jaime]

[quote]But it's not... it has to do with faith and guidence... and Mahony is going against other Catholic Bishops and the Catechism... [/quote]


[quote]Bishops laud Senate immigration bill provisions, changes still needed
By Patricia Zapor
4/4/2006

Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)
WASHINGTON – The immigration bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee March 27 addresses many of the Catholic Church's concerns, although it also needs work, according to statements from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other church representatives.

Advertisement

An April 3 letter to senators from Bishop Gerald R. Barnes of San Bernardino, Calif., chairman of the bishops' Committee on Migration, detailed what legislative proposals for immigration the bishops support and which ones they oppose.

The letter lauded provisions of the bill approved by the Judiciary Committee that would allow the 11 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants the chance to legalize their status, establish a temporary worker program and reorganize legal immigration procedures to reduce the backlog of applications for family reunification visas.

Bishop Barnes praised the committee bill for including legislation known as the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act, or AgJOBS, and the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act, known as the DREAM Act.

AgJOBS would allow several hundred thousand agricultural workers already in the United States to legalize their status and seek permanent residency visas. The DREAM Act would create a way for students who were brought illegally to the United States by their parents to legalize their own status while getting a college education at in-state resident rates.

The letter also expressed appreciation for amendments to the committee bill that would exempt from criminal prosecution church and other humanitarian workers who provide social, medical and other types of service to undocumented immigrants. Amendments also eliminated previous provisions that would have retroactively imposed penalties on immigrants.

Those penalties were included in a version of immigration legislation passed by the House in December. Like the Senate Judiciary Committee's bill, and one proposed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the House legislation is among the possible laws being considered by the full Senate.

"[b]We also are pleased that the committee rejected provisions from the House-passed version of H.R. 4437 that would criminalize unlawful presence," Bishop Barnes wrote. It currently is a violation of civil, not criminal, law to be in the country without permission.[/b]

Aspects of the committee bill dealing with due process rights are harmful, however, "and should either be stricken or ameliorated during Senate floor consideration of the measure," the bishop's letter said.

Among provisions that concern the bishops are those that would expand the definition of an aggravated felony, which would make "many deserving aliens ineligible for immigration relief."

Also troubling are provisions that would increase the use of "indiscriminate, mandatory and indefinite detention" and expand the use of expedited removal, he said. Those changes "might return refugees, asylum seekers, unaccompanied children, trafficking victims, battered spouses and other vulnerable populations to situations where they may face harm."

Bishop Barnes objected to provisions limiting judicial review "at a time when the judiciary has leveled unprecedented charges that the immigration court system is making unjust decisions," and that would empower state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal civil immigration laws.

A March 28 statement from Catholic Charities USA president Father Larry Snyder said he is grateful that the Judiciary Committee eliminated penalties for providing humanitarian assistance to illegal immigrants.

His statement reiterated the key goals the Catholic bishops and other organizations and their Justice for Immigrants campaign have promoted for immigration legislation. They include:

- A path to lawful permanent residency and citizenship for undocumented people already here.

- Improvements in legal immigration procedures to make it easier for families to be reunited and allowed to stay together.

- Promotion of national security.

- Creation of more legal avenues for necessary workers to be admitted to the United States.

A March 29 statement from Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick emphasized those same points about pending legislation and encouraged the Senate to keep its debate "civil and respectful of the dignity we all have as children of God."

"I fear harsh rhetoric and punitive policies could further divide our country and people," he said.

The Jesuit Conference of the United States March 24 issued a statement warning that, "with emotions running high over immigration reform and both sides becoming more polarized, people of faith may feel torn by an apparent choice between national security and the call of Jesus to welcome the stranger."

"It's a false choice," said Father James R. Stormes, secretary for social and international ministries for the Jesuit Conference, "because America can secure its borders in a way that protects our labor force and promotes human rights by bringing 12 million people out of the shadows."
[/quote]

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 5 2006, 09:48 PM'][quote name='Mateo el Feo' date=' Apr 5 2006, 08:22 PM']Well, to be honest, the guy's question was poorly formed.  If he wanted to be answered, he shouldn't have been vague.  He should have identified those whom he considered "well-known dissenters of our Catholic Church teachings."  He neither named them nor did he identify the dissenting opinions that they held.  Sadly, the Cardinals response to this guy's accusation was completely appropriate.

A word to the wise: do your homework before presenting an accusation.[/quote]

[quote]The April 8, 2000 Los Angeles Religious Education Conference, a major West Coast event in Roger Cardinal Mahoney's diocese, featured a band of heterodox speakers including CTA regulars Fathers Patrick Brennan and Michael Crosby, sociologist Fr. Andrew Greeley (notorious for his salacious novels), Sr. Barbara Fiand who was restricted from teaching seminarians at Cincinnati's Atheneum because of her bad theology, Sr. Elizabeth Johnson who denies Church teaching on ordination, Fr. Richard Rohr who officiated at a lesbian "wedding," etc., etc.[/quote]
[right][snapback]937252[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hi Socrates,

I don't mean to suggest that the questioner's opinion was unfounded. I merely intended to show that an accusation without proof is easily brushed aside.

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 5 2006, 03:30 PM']Mahoney sounds like a politician - he rattles off many words which say nothing.

Note how he deflects questions about the    ual abuse which he covered up, with empty "holy talk."
And this gem:

In the conference refered to here, "the good Cardinal" invited various pro-homosexual, pro-immorality, pro-abortion, radical feminist, and  New Age speakers to lecture to religious educators.

Mahoney had no answer concerning this outrage.

Yet we are told by the libs here that to question Mahoney on immigration issues is to go against the Church.  Are we to agree with him on everything else too?
[right][snapback]937031[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You so readily brush aside anything Cardinal Mahoney says and accuse him of wrong doing short of calling him heretical, yet you so readily accept the immigration bill from politicians no matter who gets affected. Is it a case of patriotism trumping catholicism?

[jasJis]

That's not the case AoJ. Read the article because it repeats the KEY components of what is needed for a reformed immigration policy:
[quote]- A path to lawful permanent residency and citizenship for undocumented people already here.

- Improvements in legal immigration procedures to make it easier for families to be reunited and allowed to stay together.

- Promotion of national security.

- Creation of more legal avenues for necessary workers to be admitted to the United States.[/quote]The complaint about Mahoney and his ilk, is how he elevates the one issue regarding aiding aid to illegals with emotional rhetoric which is pointed out to be a problem.[quote] March 29 statement from Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick emphasized those same points about pending legislation and encouraged the Senate to keep its debate "civil and respectful of the dignity we all have as children of God."

"I fear harsh rhetoric and punitive policies could further divide our country and people," he said.[/quote]I agree the punitive policies are not productive, but the harsh rhetoric comes from both sides, and in this case, is coming from Mahoney in the guise of coming from a learned and holy Catholic Cardinal. The Church also acknowledges the right of a Country to regulate immigrants and create laws concerning them because it is a matter of national security. Instead of intelligent dialogue concerning how to create a law to distinguish between humanitarian aid and aid that fosters illegal immigration.
The argument seems to be extremes of both sides. One side says there should never be laws against aid wich is viewed as being against the right of a country to regulate immigrants, and the other side wants to punish and prevent those who would help those circumvent the laws and are viewed as being against basic human decency. Neither is the case, but nobody is willing to admit that they might be a little wrong in how they percieve the other's position.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote]Ask the Cardinal Mahoney a question..., Get an Answer[/quote]

So, he's like the magic eight ball?

Fr. Mahoney....would Mary win a bare-knuckles, no-holds-barred fight with Tasha Yar?

"Outcome uncertain"