14.2.08

Archbishop Censures Clinton Stop

I usually remain aloof from any political articles but today I make an exception. The mere idea of Hillary Clinton, (or any other candidate of any faction) who so espouses the ideas of abortion speaking at a Catholic University is another bit of evidence of how morally corrupt the Catholic Church of America (1) has become. I applaude the Archbishop for speaking out against this appearance.

More more thing, Of course the Archbishop was not informed in advance. If he had the University may have had protests by the faithful, and that would not do. Mrs Clinton feels herself to be the heir apparent, and therefore anything other than goddess worshipping, syncopathic adulation would be inappropriate. Shame on St Marys!

This is the EMAIL Address to St Mary's Campus Ministry. univmin@stmarytx.edu Why did they not speak up?

Archbishop Censures Clinton Stop at Catholic University

Says Senator's Record Not Consistent With Church Teaching

SAN ANTONIO, Texas, FEB. 13, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The archbishop of San Antonio said he was "surprised" to hear that a local Catholic university will be the spot for a campaign rally for Senator Hilary Clinton, whose records he says are not consistent with Church teaching.

Archbishop José Gomez said this today in a press statement ahead of Clinton's scheduled campaign rally at St. Mary's University this evening. Clinton, a longtime supporter of abortion rights, is holding the event as part of her bid for the White House.

In an official message from the communications office of the archdiocese, Archbishop Gomez said, "I was surprised to learn of Senator Hillary Clinton’s appearance at St. Mary’s University. I was neither advised nor consulted by the university before the decision was made to have Senator Clinton speak at the university."

The prelate affirmed: "Catholic institutions are obliged to teach and promote Catholic values in all instances. This is especially important when people look to our Catholic universities and colleges to provide leadership and clarity to the often complicated and conflicting political discourse.

"It is clear that the records of Senator Clinton and some of the other candidates for president on important life issues are not consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church."

In the message that drew the support of Bishop Patrick Zurek of Amarillo and Bishop Thomas Flanagan, retired auxiliary bishop of San Antonio, Archbishop Gomez stated clearly, "It is not my intention to tell people for whom to vote."

"However," he continued, "I encourage Catholics to understand the teachings of the Church on the broad spectrum of public issues that are of great concern today."

The 56-year-old archbishop recalled a 2004 document from the U.S. episcopal conference that "affirmed that when dealing with political candidates and public office holders, 'The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.'"

Archbishop Gomez acknowledged that a disclaimer from St. Mary's said the institution "as a Catholic tax-exempt university," does not "endorse political candidates or their positions on issues and acknowledges the fundamental differences between those of the presidential candidates and the Catholic Church."

But the San Antonio archbishop affirmed, "Our Catholic institutions must promote the clear understanding of our deep moral convictions on an issue like abortion, an act that the Church calls 'an unspeakable crime' and a non-negotiable issue."


(1) as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church in America

de Brantigny

6 comments:

Katherine said...

I think the Archdiocese has not done anything to advance the Catholic faith by its recent attempt to ban Mrs. Clinton from speaking on the campus of an independent Catholic university. The bishops and their representatives at the USCCB meet regularly with various senators including Mrs. Clinton. The suggestion that it is okay for the bishops to hear from her but not the lay faithful (and those persons not part of our faith community but associated with St. Mary's) indicates a very low opinion of the laity. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from any and all of the presidential candidates and others in public life. Since there are a lot more of us lay faithful than bishops, we need a large space to do so. I think I am capable of listening to her and others without being drawn into sin. If Archbishop Gomez thinks this is difficult, I suggest he first start with himself and his brother bishops and stop interacting with such senators and others in public life. If he thinks we lay folks are feeble minded types who don't have the same ability as the bishops, I think he insults the lay faithful.

de Brantigny said...

Katherine,
Thank you for your comment. The point of the article is that not tha Mrs Clinton was banned from St Mary's but that the Archishop was not notified of her appearance in advance, and to remind the College of the obligation to teach and promote Catholic values in all instances. The college cannot teach the doctrine of the Church and then allow someone to speak against it, all in the name of fairness, and point of view.

The Archbishop is the shepherd of his sheep. His diocese is in effect his house.In your house are you not given the courtesy of finding out who is coming before hand? The fact that it is a Catholic college, and that the teachings of the Churh are in opposition from Mrs Clinton, (or Obama, or Huckabee, or McCain)is not a matter of academic freedom. It is a calculated slap in the face of our faith.

The USCCB is holding dialoge with the senators, and congress people. It is not allowing them to profess diatribes which relfect a contadiction to the True Faith.
As a Bishop, Archbishop Gomez has the responsibility to remind the faithful of the grave consequences of being confronted with scandalous and sinful ideas. Just as the Pope does.

Archbishop Gomez was not only right do act but acted in accordance with the Faith.

I do not think the Archbishop has a low opinion of the laity, I think that you have a low opinion of the faith.

Peace.
de Brantigny

Katherine said...

The college cannot teach the doctrine of the Church and then allow someone to speak against it

I watched Mrs. Clinton speech. At now time did she speak against a doctrine of the Church.

The Archbishop is the shepherd of his sheep. His diocese is in effect his house.In your house are you not given the courtesy of finding out who is coming before hand?

Under canon law, the university is its own "juridical person". It is not the archbishop's house under canon law.

The USCCB is holding dialoge with the senators, and congress people. It is not allowing them to profess diatribes..

I watched the speech. There was nothing in it which a Christian respecting the commandmant not to bear false witness could call a diatribe. To so describe her speech is to expose oneself as a political polemiticist rather than as a faithful Catholic.

As a Bishop, Archbishop Gomez has the responsibility to remind the faithful of the grave consequences of being confronted with scandalous and sinful ideas.

Mrs. Clinton did not expose anyone at St. Mary's to scandalous and sinful ideas.

However, the Archbishop has shown himself to be impotent and the University has gone ahead and performed a virtuous act by adding to the important civic dialogue essential for a free society. I am confident this will give moral courage to other universities who wish to honor the very values we are enduring loss of human life in Iraq for.

de Brantigny said...

Katherine, again thank you for your comment.

Mrs Clinton has a long history of speaking in contradiction to church doctrine. It does not matter where she says it or has said it. The college is under his jurisdiction. Where in canobn law does it say that a college may call it self Catholic and then invite someone who so contradicts church teaching. Since you are so completely confident about Canon Law, produce the referenced law.
I think you will find only the Abbot at Belmont Abbey has the facility of a Bishop.

What does false witness have to do with it? Mrs Clinton is not Catholic, therefore, her statements, especially those which are pro-abortion, contradict the Magisterium. Do you not understand this?

Your mind being made up, I will not attempt to confuse you with reasoning.

The Bishop impotent? He has made his point. He did what was required by him. Did you think he would invade with papal paratroops and take over the college?. What has Iraq have to do woth this and lastly, have you read my blog of just this article? I do not believe in repulics, and this on certainly is not, was not and was not meant to bea democracy for its inception.

de Brantigny

Katherine said...

Mrs Clinton has a long history of speaking in contradiction to church doctrine. It does not matter where she says it or has said it.


Ir does matter if someone accused her of saying it at the college when she did not because truth matters.

The college is under his jurisdiction.

The college is not under his juridisction according to canon law. St. Mary's is an independent Catholic institution.

Where in canobn law does it say that a college may call it self Catholic and then invite someone who so contradicts church teaching. Since you are so completely confident about Canon Law, produce the referenced law.

As any Catholic canonist would tell you, when canon law restricts, it must state so. So you need to show a canon that says the bishop may decide what people may speak at a Catholic college. There is no such canon, so you will not find it.

What does false witness have to do with it? Mrs Clinton is not Catholic, therefore, her statements, especially those which are pro-abortion, contradict the Magisterium. Do you not understand this?

It is you who seemed to bear false witness when you called her remarks at St. Mary's a diatribe. They were not. This was a false accusation as will be further proven by your nability to quote from any portion of her remarks that were a diatribe.


The Bishop impotent? He has made his point.

And the university made their point. Matter closed I think.

lastly, have you read my blog of just this article? I do not believe in repulics, and this on certainly is not, was not and was not meant to bea democracy for its inception.

Sorry, I had wrongly assumed you were a patiotic American. Obviously, if you do not believe in our country, you would see no value in Mrs. Clinton's speech or any other aspect of a free people governing themselves.

de Brantigny said...

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I had a computer glitch...

You wrote:
Ir does matter if someone accused her of saying it at the college when she did not because truth matters.

I never accused her of saying anything at the college. I accused her and the accusation stands that Mrs Clinton is anti-Catholic in her beliefs.

You wrote:
The college is not under his juridisction according to canon law. St. Mary's is an independent Catholic institution.

Nonsense. Anything which happens with in the confines of a Bishops Diocese is HIS business if it involves the faith and morals of the faithful. I will argue no further on this point you are wrong, who ever is filling you head with such "canon law says this wrong also".

You wrote:
As any Catholic canonist would tell you, when canon law restricts, it must state so. So you need to show a canon that says the bishop may decide what people may speak at a Catholic college. There is no such canon, so you will not find it.

They are not canonists they are called Canon Lawyers (Juris Canonici), my spirtual director is one. You are a relativist I can see. Incidentally Though the word canon is bandied about much, Bishops are guided by "Apostolorum Successores", Pastoral Directory for Bishops. You may find a link to an overview here.

http://www.zenit.org/article-9599?l=english

You wrote:
It is you who seemed to bear false witness when you called her remarks at St. Mary's a diatribe. They were not. This was a false accusation as will be further proven by your nability to quote from any portion of her remarks that were a diatribe.

I do not put the words of someone who is so directly in obstinate oppostion to the Church. To do so would lend an air of equality with the teaching of the Church which they are not.

You wrote:
And the university made their point. Matter closed I think.

She has spoken it is true. It shows the level to which the college has fallen.

You Wrote:
Sorry, I had wrongly assumed you were a patiotic American. Obviously, if you do not believe in our country, you would see no value in Mrs. Clinton's speech or any other aspect of a free people governing themselves.

First, you assume something. Second as many of those who favor the jacobin style democracy, if I don't agree with you then I am guilty f some unpatriotic misstep. I see no aspect of a free people. Period.

It is the constitution of the United States which says I have a God given (not man given right to freedom of speach.) Next you know next to nothing about me, and yet you have run the gambet of placing into question my understanding of the Faith, and now my patriotist.

I end with these quotes, by the father of the Terror...

"...Again, it may be said, that to love justice and equality the people need no great effort of virtue; it is sufficient that they love themselves..." Robespierre

http://lefleurdelystoo.blogspot.com/2007/10/forerunners-of-french-revolution-part_3683.html

http://lefleurdelystoo.blogspot.com/2007/10/forerunners-of-french-revolution-part_1438.html

http://lefleurdelystoo.blogspot.com/2007/11/democracy-is-unsupportable.html

dB