Great story by Fr. Longenecker about Father Newman.
He speaks about the emails he and Father Newman received...which were in 4 categories.
1.The irrational vulgar blasphemers. 2.The Catechism is Republican tool, why does the Church want to drive people away. 3.We are nasty intolerant racist animal haters who litter and don't recycle. 5. Loyal informed dedicated Catholics who gave thanks, prayers and goodwill.
The demonic were understandable: The devil will be a gentle dog as long as you feed him, but if you kick him, he bites back. The lame are those who are largely ignorant of the Catholic Faith, and can best be helped with prayer.
But the "defiant" category makes up the largest number of our respondents, and is the saddest category of all. Statistics show us that these are the Catholics who sealed Obama's victory. They are people who were poorly catechized over the last 40 years in America. They have been nurtured in the Protest Generation and told that it is fine, even noble, to disagree with the Church. They have been taught to act according to their conscience without taking the trouble or time to inform it.
Caught up in the trendy agendas of the day, they have jumped on the bandwagons of feminism, environmentalism, homosexualism, socialism, and sentimentalism -- mistaking their favorite cause for the Catholic Faith. When they are confronted with clear, concise, and consistent Catholicism they are shocked and angry, and their response is (if they haven't done so already) to leave the Church, preferring their own wisdom to the wisdom of God.
In the next 20 years, this sort of Catholic will become extinct. As America descends further into decadence and decline, the lines will be drawn between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. People will have to choose whether to serve God and His Church or the dark side.
Nothing like the sweet taste of courage and truth coming from a priest.
This sort of thing is becoming more common, not less, as this world descends and faithful and faithless are harvested by their dominion.
Well, it turns out that Father Newman originally had the full support of Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin, the acting administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, which currently does not have a bishop. But two days later, Msgr. Laughlin reprimanded Fr. Newman in what appeared to be fairly harsh terms (they really weren't; I'll get to that).
Most of the press has covered the story as if Msgr. Laughlin's initial support never existed. But Carolyn Click's report at The State on Friday (HT Catholic Culture) shows otherwise:
While Newman has been the most outspoken of South Carolina priests in the wake of the election, the administrator of the diocese of Charleston, Msgr. Martin T. Laughlin, supports him fully, said diocese spokesman Steve Gajdosik.
“I think it’s fair to say that Father Newman’s letter echoes the sentiments of Father Laughlin,” he said.
..... other priests of the Charleston diocese had already indicated their support for Father Newman. On November 12, for example, Father Newman received this message:
Thank you for your statement. I wish the bishops would have been as forthright. Why did they not speak before the election?
That email message was sent to Father Newman by... are you ready?... Msgr. Laughlin.
Seems Monsignor Laughlin has flip floppped. How sad that when it came his time to choose, he couldn't pay the price.
Father Newman made no “statements contrary to Catholic teachings,” and if I may be so clever, Msgr. Laughlin didn’t say that he did. He said they were “inadequate.” But if even Laughlin had written, “The diocese repudiates every word of Fr. Newman’s statements,” the diocese would be wrong (see UPDATE; it is wrong), and I will reference material supported by official Catholic teachings to prove it.
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.
Q3. If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?
If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.” A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters.
Q6. If I think that a candidate who is pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?
….. solidarity (with the poor) can never be at the price of embracing a “disqualifying issue.” Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely among society’s most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue because as Pope John Paul II says it is “the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost.” If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.
Q7. If a candidate says that he is personally opposed to abortion but feels the need to vote for it under the circumstances, doesn’t this candidate’s personal opposition to abortion make it morally permissible for me to vote for him, especially if I think that his other views are the best for people, especially the poor?
A candidate for office who says that he is personally opposed to abortion but actually votes in favor of it is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. ….. If you vote for such a candidate, you would be an accomplice in advancing the moral evil of abortion. Therefore, it is not morally permissible to vote for such a candidate for office, even, as explained in questions 3 and 6 above, you think that the candidate’s other views are best for the poor.
Q14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?
To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.
A Catholic in a state of mortal sin cannot receive Communion, but must receive confession and do penance to get out of the state of mortal sin. This is of course exactly what Fr. Newman said:
“Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation,” Newman wrote.
Father Newman is thus inarguably right.
How Beautiful it is to see a priest willing to pay the price.
(UPDATE-Thanks to those who emailed that the link was broken. Video is now working )
The bishops however, had not been given the whole story at their Denver retreat. Cardinal McCarrick withheld the text of a definitive memorandum from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith not only from the public, but also from the bishops themselves. In that document Cardinal Ratzinger said that pro-abotion politicians, after appropriate warnings, "must" be refused communion. Bishop Vasa confirmed that the crucial instruction from Rome, which had been written expressly for the Denver meeting, was not given to the bishops.
Vasa said, "As I recall, Cardinal McCarrick made reference to some letter, but I did not see a copy of the letter at the meeting. I don't know if the committee writing the 'Statement,' entitled 'Catholics in Political Life,' was given a copy of the letter." However the Interim Report, presented to the bishops for their use in drafting the statement suggested the opposite, warning against refusing anyone communion.
A recent letter from the Vatican's Cardinal Ratzinger verified his leaked memorandum was authentic and in fact Church Doctrine. The letter also noted that the memo was "very much in harmony with the general principles" of his memorandum. The Ratzinger letter did not however condone the misleading slant of the Interim Report which strongly favored never denying communion. The Catholics in Political Life Statement while it did leave the decision to deny communion up to local bishops, clarified that that must be done "in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles." Of note, Cannon 915 states that those "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion."
Is this confusing? "The Catholics in Political Life Statement while it did leave the decision to deny communion up to local bishops, clarified that that must be done "in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles." Of note, Cannon 915 states that those "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion."
These poor clueless Bishops have translated this as the Church saying they must comply with Canon 915 unless of course, they don't want to.
Take off your tin foil hat.
What the Church is saying is, if there is a situation where a soul has expressed private repentance and made a vow to amend their lives and does not further work the proabortion agenda, discretion is of course, applied, in spite of the fact that the public may not have yet seen the fruit of this conversion.
Another example of this golden parachute would be a young man and woman living together prior to marriage, whom the priest has guided and worked with and they finally agree to live as brother and sister until they can arrange to move back with mommy and daddy. Everyone in the congregation may not be privy to this conversion and the priest uses his discretion as he is in conversation with them and they are open to his counsel.
Kralis asked Bishop Vasa why McCarrick might have given conflicting information to the bishops. "Do the U.S. bishops now teach that it is correct for one Bishop to deny John Kerry the Eucharist while another Bishop, perhaps in a diocese just 10 miles away, mandates his 'ministers of Holy Communion' to give Kerry the Eucharist?"
Vasa replied, "I answer to the Holy See, I don't answer to the USCCB. The June memorandum of Cardinal Ratzinger should have a greater impact on the decision of individual bishops in their own dioceses than the 'Statement' of the USCCB, which seems to give broader latitude to the judgment of the bishops."
Bishops who are differing on whether voters and lawmakers should refrain from receiving Communion are not in communion with the Catholic Church, and one ought to mosey on down the road if they are at all interested in their own salvation and that of their children.
Guess who's back!!! The Ghost of Thwarting Catechism Past.
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said she had not heard of other churches taking this position in reaction to Obama's win. A Boston-based group that supports Catholic Democrats questioned the move, saying it was too extreme.
"Father Newman is off-base," said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. "He is acting beyond the authority of a parish priest to say what he did. ... Unfortunately, he is doing so in a manner that will be of great cost to those parishioners who did vote for Sens. Obama and Biden. There will be a spiritual cost to them for his words."
Steve Krueger, of the peculiar (and now defunct) "Voice of the Faithful". (Now I get the "no room at the table" sound bite. Steve went out in a blaze of glory when he repeated that he wanted "a seat at the four-sided table" until it was too weird to process, even for VOTFers.)
A man who has attended St. Mary's for 18 years said he welcomed Newman's message and anticipated it would inspire further discussion at the church.
"I don't understand anyone who would call themselves a Christian, let alone a Catholic, and could vote for someone who's a pro-abortion candidate," said Ted Kelly, 64, who volunteers his time as lector for the church. "You're talking about the murder of innocent beings."
By the way, 90% of Father Newman's flock seeks the Sacrament of Confession if their soul is not in a state of grace. Ninety percent.
This is a priest and a spiritual father that loves Christ more than he loves himself. A rare jewel.
