All Priests Must Play Recorded Homily On Life And Family Or Suffer

[Seven77]

Praise God!!!

[bonoducchi]

I am fully pro-life, not just anti-abortion like many Catholics. However, the Liturgy is not a place to stump for political influence. It is our sacred contact with our Savior in word and Sacrament. For His Eminence to force this upon his priests is shocking episopal tyranny. He has ample pulpit for teaching the flock without resorting to hijacking the homily, especially on a day with such a terrific gospel (Mark 12:28b ff.).

Edited November 28, 2006 by VaticanIILiturgist

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129338' date='Nov 27 2006, 10:19 PM']
I am fully pro-life, not just anti-abortion like many Catholics. However, the Liturgy is not a place to stump for political influence. It is our sacred contact with our Savior in word and Sacrament. For His Eminence to force this upon his priests is shocking episopal tyranny. He has ample pulpit for teaching the flock without resorting to hijacking the homily, especially on a day with such a terrific gospel (Mark 12:28b ff.).
[/quote]
His Excellency (not His Eminence, which is a title for a cardinal) is catechizing his flock. That is the primary purpose of the homily in the liturgy. Since catechesis includes the practical application of the faith of the Church, it is correct to apply our faith to particular circumstances such as voting issues. It is hardly "episopal [sic] tyranny." I'm certain that if you wish to attack his methods, you can send him a humble letter of disagreement and await his response.

Welcome to Phatmass. Please read the following from our guidelines section:

[b]Catholic vs Catholic Debate[/b]
A post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. [b]*Effective immediately, any negative criticism of religious or the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators.[/b] This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1129351' date='Nov 27 2006, 09:30 PM']
His Excellency (not His Eminence, which is a title for a cardinal) is catechizing his flock. That is the primary purpose of the homily in the liturgy. Since catechesis includes the practical application of the faith of the Church, it is correct to apply our faith to particular circumstances such as voting issues. It is hardly "episopal [sic] tyranny." I'm certain that if you wish to attack his methods, you can send him a humble letter of disagreement and await his response.

Welcome to Phatmass. Please read the following from our guidelines section:

[b]Catholic vs Catholic Debate[/b]
A post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. [b]*Effective immediately, any negative criticism of religious or the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators.[/b] This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father.
[/quote]

Mea culpa for the incorrect title. I assure you in my frequent correpsondence with bishops and caridnals, I use the correct honorifics. I was reading an article about Carindal Arinze just before I wrote that.

I did send His Excellency (!) a letter and received the expected letter thanking me for my correspondence. Is was signed in ink by him and was quite coridal.

The primary function of the homily, in my reading of the GIRM p. 65 (It should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.) doesn't seem to include His Excelleny's interpretation. The homily must be based on the readings of the day or the Mass itself. I'll ask Bishop Trautman when I see him next month...he's quite the liturgist.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129338' date='Nov 27 2006, 10:19 PM']I am fully pro-life, not just anti-abortion like many Catholics.[/quote]Is this secret code for the "seemless garment" position?
[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129338' date='Nov 27 2006, 10:19 PM']However, the Liturgy is not a place to stump for political influence.[/quote]Please identify what part of the recorded homily is political and what part of it is moral?
[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129338' date='Nov 27 2006, 10:19 PM']It is our sacred contact with our Savior in word and Sacrament. For His Eminence to force this upon his priests is shocking episopal tyranny.[/quote]Hearing the words "episcopal tyranny", I get the impression that you don't understand that the priests of a diocese act as representatives of their bishop. Their authority to administer the sacraments comes down to them through the bishop.
[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129338' date='Nov 27 2006, 10:19 PM']He has ample pulpit for teaching the flock without resorting to hijacking the homily, especially on a day with such a terrific gospel (Mark 12:28b ff.).[/quote]I suspect that the priests can still give a homily on the reading after playing the recording. Am I wrong?

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1129395' date='Nov 27 2006, 09:51 PM']
Is this secret code for the "seemless garment" position?
Please identify what part of the recorded homily is political and what part of it is moral?
Hearing the words "episcopal tyranny", I get the impression that you don't understand that the priests of a diocese act as representatives of their bishop. Their authority to administer the sacraments comes down to them through the bishop.
I suspect that the priests can still give a homily on the reading after playing the recording. Am I wrong?
[/quote]

I dont' know what you mean by seemless garment. I support anti-abortion causes, anti-death penalty causes, anti-anything that violates human dignity.

I fully understand the role of priests in relation to their bishop. I also know bishops are human and sometimes make errors in judgment and get drunk on power.

Would you like to listen to 2 homilies?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129387' date='Nov 27 2006, 10:49 PM']
Mea culpa for the incorrect title. I assure you in my frequent correpsondence with bishops and caridnals, I use the correct honorifics. I was reading an article about Carindal Arinze just before I wrote that.

I did send His Excellency (!) a letter and received the expected letter thanking me for my correspondence. Is was signed in ink by him and was quite coridal.

The primary function of the homily, in my reading of the GIRM p. 65 (It should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.) doesn't seem to include His Excelleny's interpretation. The homily must be based on the readings of the day or the Mass itself. I'll ask Bishop Trautman when I see him next month...he's quite the liturgist.
[/quote]

Yes, and did you listen to the homily? I didn't myself, but I don't think it's impossible that the bishop did provide catechesis on the Gospel. I've only heard one homily ever given when a taped message from a bishop was played, but the message actually followed what would otherwise have been the only homiletic. It seems to me that if the homily topic is "covered," so to speak, then it is perfectly fine for the bishop to address certain other concerns as appropriate. For instance (granted, it predates the GIRM), Pope Pius XI had a letter concerning Nazism read during all the homilies in Germany. I hardly think that the pope would be such a poor liturgist. In any event, the bishop of a diocese most certainly has the right to address matters of how his flock should vote and since many of those who would vote against Catholic teaching would probably not be the ones coming to informational sessions or ordering the Catholic diocesan newspaper, it seems that the homily is the most pastorally appropriate place for such a message.

It's great to have a liturgist here. I don't mean to get off on the wrong foot with you, but you came across quite disrespectfully.

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129408' date='Nov 27 2006, 10:59 PM']
I dont' know what you mean by seemless garment. I support anti-abortion causes, anti-death penalty causes, anti-anything that violates human dignity.

I fully understand the role of priests in relation to their bishop. I also know bishops are human and sometimes make errors in judgment and get drunk on power.

Would you like to listen to 2 homilies?
[/quote]
While I'm against the death penalty in most cases, you should know that the Church does not see it as intrinsically wrong.

Anyway, that's a topic for another thread.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129408' date='Nov 27 2006, 10:59 PM']I dont' know what you mean by seemless garment. I support anti-abortion causes, anti-death penalty causes, anti-anything that violates human dignity.[/quote]You've just described the seamless garment position.
[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129408' date='Nov 27 2006, 10:59 PM']I fully understand the role of priests in relation to their bishop. I also know bishops are human and sometimes make errors in judgment and get drunk on power.[/quote]If grave immoralities are happening with little resistance from a people who "rule" through democracy, I wouldn't describe the bishop as "drunk on power." If anything, he is fighting a secular society that is drunk on its own power.

[bonoducchi]

If Archbishop Weakland sent a CD with a homily extoling the virtues of the current Ordo Missae, would you think that was a good idea?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129462' date='Nov 27 2006, 11:47 PM']
If Archbishop Weakland sent a CD with a homily extoling the virtues of the current Ordo Missae, would you think that was a good idea?
[/quote]
That would not be applicable to the religious ramifications of an election.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129462' date='Nov 27 2006, 11:47 PM']
If Archbishop Weakland sent a CD with a homily extoling the virtues of the current Ordo Missae, would you think that was a good idea?
[/quote]
If it was particularly relevant to a grave matter or concern among the faithful of his diocese which, left unchecked, could result in serious sin, yes.

[bonoducchi]

The election did not lead anyone to a state fo serious sin. Don't worry.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129472' date='Nov 27 2006, 11:55 PM']
The election did not lead anyone to a state fo serious sin. Don't worry.
[/quote]
how would you know??

[bonoducchi]

Becuase both candidates promote policy that violoates human dignity. The Church tells us it is our duy to vote. Therefore, we are trying to promote the least evil. Would Holy Mother Church tell us to do something that would lead us to serious sin?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129472' date='Nov 27 2006, 11:55 PM']
The election did not lead anyone to a state fo serious sin. Don't worry.
[/quote]
That's quite the judgment. With so many Catholics knowingly and willingly violating the Church to vote for pro-abortion, pro-cloning, pro-homosexual, etc. politicians, you'd think that would be a harder thing to judge.

[bonoducchi]

So many vote for candidates that are against abortion, but are pro-death penalty, pro-big business, and don't seek to provide adequate health care or education for the poor, who we are charged with taking special care of. Are these less important?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129503' date='Nov 28 2006, 12:15 AM']
So many vote for candidates that are against abortion, but are pro-death penalty, pro-big business, and don't seek to provide adequate health care or education for the poor, who we are charged with taking special care of. Are these less important?
[/quote]
According to the voter's guides released by the Church, yes.

The death penalty is allowed by the Church in certain circumstances (CCC 2267). The Church doesn't take an official stance on big-business, and considers health care and education, while important, nowhere near the importance of abortion, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, and euthanasia, which are all direct attacks on life and marriage. Furthermore, the Church does not say that there is a "right" way to approach health care (whether privatized or supported by medicare) or education (whether paid for by public funds, granted vouchers, or anything else).

[bonoducchi]

So abortion and keeping gays from marrying are our top priorties as a Church? That's it? Not feeding and taking care of the poor and teaching our young ones? We can't be so miopic. Christ healed the sick and taught those thirsting for knwledge. Should we not make those priorities too? He didn't say too much at all about homosexuality, abortion, female ordination, ecclesiology....

I know the Church allows the death penalty, but it has also said that in today's society, where death is not needed to protect society, it is needless. George Bush didn't need to kill so many in Texas. There was no societal protection at stake.

Gospel of Love, not Gospel of Laws

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129565' date='Nov 28 2006, 01:02 AM']
So abortion and keeping gays from marrying are our top priorties as a Church? That's it?
[/quote]

Of course not. However, they are the things the Church has definitive teaching about, and as such, those teachings are binding on the consciences of the faithful. Therefore, the Church has to teach about these things most firmly.

[quote]Not feeding and taking care of the poor and teaching our young ones?[/quote]

Of course the Church is concerned about these things, but, for the most part, it is not the Church's competency or mission to tell politicians or governments how to go about taking care of the poor or teaching children. The Church sets certain moral standards...as long as your political plan meets those standards, the Church isn't going to oppose you. Most healthcare and education plans either are in line with the Church's teaching (even if the plans oppose each other) or are too insignificant for the Church to notice.

[quote] We can't be so miopic. Christ healed the sick and taught those thirsting for knwledge. Should we not make those priorities too?[/quote]

Of course, but all this reminds me of a conversation I had with my aunt. "Why doesn't the Republican Party care for the poor?" she asked. "Well, Aunt Patty, it does. It just does agree with the Democratic Party on how to go about helping them." Everyone wants care for the sick and aid for the poor and education for the young, and that's what the Church demands, but not everyone is agreed on how to do it...and that's where, most of the time, the Church is silent.

[quote]He didn't say too much at all about homosexuality, abortion, female ordination, ecclesiology....[/quote]

1. Wasn't a major concern of His...I don't think He encountered it much around the Jews...that's why St. Paul really brought it up in dealings with the Gentiles.

2. Also wasn't a major concern...while abortions did happen back then, they were much more rare and usually caused by herbs, not by organizations set up for the sole purpose of providing abortions.

3. He didn't say much about it because it wasn't an issue. People back then understood that women couldn't be priests.

4. He said a ton about ecclesiology...just didn't do it the way we do it...it's all in seminal form in His words.

[quote]I know the Church allows the death penalty, but it has also said that in today's society, where death is not needed to protect society, it is needless. George Bush didn't need to kill so many in Texas. There was no societal protection at stake. [/quote]

I agree, but since the Church doesn't teach that it is objectively wrong in every case, the Church can't condemn politicians for supporting it as easily as she can condemn politicians who support other things.

[quote]Gospel of Love, not Gospel of Laws[/quote]

Amen...but not quite. Jesus didn't abolish the law, He fulfilled it with love. Laws still exist, love is just how to fulfill them.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129565' date='Nov 28 2006, 01:02 AM']So abortion and keeping gays from marrying are our top priorties as a Church? That's it? Not feeding and taking care of the poor and teaching our young ones? We can't be so miopic. [/quote]Here's a more apples-to-apples comparison: when someone proposes legislation banning acts of charity toward the poor, I suppose the bishops would see that as an important thing to oppose. Since no political movement seems to have such an agenda, I can see why citizens aren't making a big issue out of it when they vote.
[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1129565' date='Nov 28 2006, 01:02 AM']Gospel of Love, not Gospel of Laws[/quote]A common either-or mistake. Better to say: a Gospel of Love [u]and[/u] a Gospel of Laws (cf. [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john14.htm#v21"]John 14:21[/url]) God's Law exists [u]because[/u] of His Love, not in spite of it.