Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

This will also pave the way for euthanasia ….

June 5th, 2017, Promulgated by Diane Harris
Thanks to JL for the heads up on this grievous situation squashing Catholics in the Public Square:
CATHOLIC BISHOPS BAN SIGNATURE DRIVES—
PRO-LIFE CAMPAIGN IN JEOPARDY
 
The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today (6/4/17) is criticizing the Bay State’s four Catholic bishops for imposing an immediate ban on signature gathering on church property. The likely target of this decision, and the one to suffer the most deleterious impact, is an initiative petition campaign sponsored by two pro-life organizations, the Massachusetts Alliance To Stop Taxpayer Funded Abortion and the Renew MA Coalition.
The effort, led by Attorney Thomas M. Harvey, is aimed the passage of an initiative amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution which would overturn the 1981 Moe v. Hanley decision by the Commonwealth’s Supreme Judicial Court, which created an even more expansive right to abortion, and the public funding of abortion, than that guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.
To get on the ballot, the campaign needs the certified signatures of nearly 65,000 registered voters in the Commonwealth. The most favorable venue for signature gathering for this effort is the front of Catholic parishes. Both the Archdiocese of Boston and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference sought to hamper this campaign during its first attempt in 2015.
In their directive, which removes all discretion from individual pastors, the bishops assert that they received “overwhelming feedback from parishioners” opposed to signature drives on church property. They also said that “Church functions are a place to experience the fullness of community and parish life. In particular, Holy Mass is a place to encounter God through the reception of the Eucharist. The celebration of Holy Mass is a place for prayer, reflection, Reconciliation and hope.”
The directive was signed by Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston, and the Bishops of Worcester, Springfield and Fall River, the Most Reverends Robert J. McManus, Mitchell T. Rozanski and Edgar M. da Cunha.
The Catholic Action League is characterizing the directive as “a calculated act of obstruction, intended to sabotage an initiative which the archdiocese had previously opposed.”
Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle made the following comment: “The consequences of this improvident decision will not be content neutral. NARAL and MassEquality do not gather signatures in front of Catholic churches. The only persons disadvantaged by this will be faithful Catholics struggling to defend religious freedom, traditional morality and the right to life.”
“There was no attempt to ‘dialog’ with the groups adversely affected by this, nor was there any ‘transparency’ in the decision making process. This is, at least, the third time since 2008 that the hierarchy has sought to impede a referendum or initiative amendment by pro-life or pro-family organizations. What we are witnessing is another troubling example of the longstanding hostility which the hierarchy and elite Catholic institutions display towards grass-roots Catholic activists who would disturb the comfortable accommodation between the Church and the state’s liberal political culture.”
“Catholic institutions, with the approval and participation of the hierarchy, routinely confer honors and awards upon, and provide platforms to public figures opposed to Catholic moral teachings. Just last month, Cardinal O’Malley attended the Boston College commencement which featured U. S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), a proponent of the public funding of Planned Parenthood.”
“The leader of the Campaign for Catholic Schools, and a major donor and advisor to the archdiocese is Obama fundraiser Jack Connors. The last Chairman of the former Catholic hospital system, Caritas Christi, was James Karam, a prominent supporter of Congressman Barney Frank. The longtime public relations firm for the archdiocese was Rasky Baerlein, founded by Larry Rasky, a close political ally of former Vice-President Joe Biden. The Cardinal’s Communications Director is Terence Donilon, brother of President Obama’s National Security Advisor, and a former aide to Rhode Island Governor Bruce Sundlun, a supporter of legal abortion.”
“The episcopate of Sean O’Malley has been characterized by an unprecedented public deference towards elected officials who reject Catholic moral principles. The late U. S. Senator Edward Kennedy and the late Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, were extolled as faithful Catholics by the Cardinal.”
“Current Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, a NARAL award recipient and Planned Parenthood defender who said he wants to make Boston a sanctuary city for abortions should Roe be overturned, was given the Cardinal Cushing Humanitarian Award by the Missionary Society of Saint James the Apostle, whose president is Cardinal O’Malley. This was done while O’Malley was serving as Pro-Life Chairman for the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.”
“Pro-life Catholics in Massachusetts have, for decades, faced a hostile media culture and political environment. Now, with this decision by the state’s Catholic bishops, their isolation has just increased, and their struggle has become lonelier. Shame on the bishops!”
|
Share this article

5 Responses to “This will also pave the way for euthanasia ….”

  1. avatar annonymouse says:

    It is becoming more and more apparent that the same divide between the Lord and “this world” is festering in Holy Mother Church. If the Massachusetts bishops are any indication, we can’t trust our own shepherds to accept and authentically teach the faith and form Catholics’ consciences. I think they make decisions oblivious of what their actions communicate to the faithful, and oblivious of what their silence fails to communicate to the faithful.

    They should deeply fear that their complicity or silence in the face of grave evil, such as is proposed in Massachusetts, will be held against them on judgment day.

  2. avatar annonymouse says:

    Let me make an exception to that – our own shepherd, his Excellency, Bishop Matano, who is valiantly swimming against the strong tide of “this world” and doing his all to shepherd us to eternal life. Thank you, Excellency.

  3. avatar christian says:

    I agree with annonymouse -“the same divide between the Lord and ‘this world’ is festering in Holy Mother Church.” It is certainly evident in Massachusetts. The bishops of Massachusetts should be cognizant of the fact that the churches which they are banning public signing of petitions (pro-life petitions probably targeted), are supported by the parishioners. The bishops would have no dioceses or churches without support of the faithful.

    I would say the parishioners have a right to sign petitions on their own church property, but the Diocese owns church property.

    The ownership of church property is one area where I disagree with Diocese ownership. The church buildings should belong to individual parishes.
    Parishes used to own their own church buildings many years ago in the Catholic church and other Christian denominations, but at one point, Dioceses took over ownership despite parishioners footing the bill. (There were instances of a pastor mismanaging parish funds, including gambling, as was done by one local pastor, but that’s why there should be a church board run by upstanding parishioners (especially those with special expertise) to oversee the operation and funds of the church, and then publish clear transparency of the funds and how they were spent, (instead of a single person). We have all seen the abuses which have resulted from Diocese ownership of churches.

    The role of bishops are to be shepherds for the faithful (and even those unsure and discerning) in their Diocese. They are supposed to guide in right ways and right teaching.
    But what if bishops are not giving right guidance, and not leading those entrusted to their care “in the paths of righteousness” for God’s sake?

  4. avatar annonymouse says:

    Christian, I would disagree that dioceses should not own Church property. The Church is organized into particular churches, led by bishops, the successors of the apostles. We tend to forget that, since the ecclesial body closest to us is the parish. We may be “registered” at a parish, but we are part of the Church at Rochester, our particular church. Our shepherd is the bishop, aided by the parish pastor whom he appoints, to whom certain powers are canonically delegated. It is vital, it seems to me, to maintain order in the Church, that the bishop own the property – imagine the mess had Father Jim Callan and Corpus Christi legally owned the East Main property – Bishop Clark’s ability to rein in that situation (albeit at Cardinal Ratzinger’s demand) would have been compromised.

    Just because certain bishops (in this case the Mass four) go over the line and perhaps even abuse their power doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have the power. The risk of individual (especially very liberal) pastors abusing their power is an even greater risk, in my opinion, than bishops doing that.

    We, the faithful, have certain canonical rights to confront and hold accountable our bishops if they run afoul of their pastoral responsibilities.

  5. avatar christian says:

    Annonymouse, I will agree to disagree with you about the ownership of church property.

    However, the ownership of church property is a different issue than church leadership. Back in the day when parishes owned their own churches, they were still under the chain of command of leadership -parish priest, local bishop, archbishop, cardinals, and pope. The parish took their spiritual guidance from their local bishop.

    I object to adults who support the church being treated like ignorant, uneducated, often bad, children who have no say in what church renovations should be done, how much should be spent on church projects and renovations, and if their church and/or school should be closed.
    Adults have also not been informed of how their church or school is listed in Diocese’s five year plan for church and/or school closings, because then they might be able to make the prudent decision not to pledge and pay a large amount of money for restoration of let’s say: a gym, a large baptism font in back of church, or expensive renovations inside the church building, if they knew they would only be there two years, one year or six months. Often, adult parishioners have been used to pay out for renovations so their church and/or school building will be more attractive and marketable for the Diocese to sell.

    Responding to your last comment: “We, the faithful, have certain canonical rights to confront and hold accountable our bishops if they run afoul of their pastoral responsibilities.” I agree! But what if those bishops are not receptive to the faithful’s questions and objections? What if those above them hold the same views? What is the likelihood that someone in the Vatican would address the situation, hopefully agreeing with the faithful, and censure those bishops with wrong teaching, etc.?

Leave a Reply


Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.


-Return to main page-