Cardinal Roger Mahony

[MichaelFilo]

unless we harbor those who are a threat to the country, which, as one ought to know, the Church is itself a pilgrim, while the country is the established head of the land. The Church awaits the glorificatio and her dominance in the End, but the country must watch after itself in the temporal.

God bless,
Mikey

[dspen2005]

[quote name='Shawn' post='953642' date='Apr 19 2006, 01:50 AM']
Ad Hominem is a personal attack on the individual. The article does not do that, it attacks the Bishops stated views and policies. Therefore its not Ad Hominem.

The "good" Bishops orders to disobey the law were and are not about disobeying an "unjust" law but a perfectly just one that would protect US citizens from Hispanic drug runners and gangs.

And of the "good" Bishop was remotely concerned about "justice" then why did he petition Clinton to pardon a known and convicted drug trafficker Carlos Vignali?

I notice that none of the posts above deal with this inconveniant fact.

Bishops are human beings. They sometimes do and say bad and even evil things. In this case getting Vignali pardoned, a man responsible for the deaths and suffering of thousands, for no better reason than pressure from local Hispanics, is simply evil and a caricature of justice.

Therefore it is reasonable to question his moral judgemnent on other issues when he is so cleally only concerned with appeasing Hispanic activists, and not particularly concerned with supporting pro-life activists.

What all this seems to prove is that the "good" Bishop is concerned more with racial politics, not justice.

"Good"?

I dont think so.
[/quote]

i agree... i don't find it to be an ad hominem attack. it even sets a pattern for us -- a quasi-pattern, at least -- by giving us the irresponsibility that the Cardinal has had in regards to the Vignali family.

I think His Eminence is in the mold of typical California politicos...

[jezic]

we do not attack bishops. In some cases they need to understand and change their minds, but we pray for them. If you feel the need, be very gentle. They are apostles.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dspen2005' post='954321' date='Apr 19 2006, 04:08 PM']
i agree... i don't find it to be an ad hominem attack. it even sets a pattern for us -- a quasi-pattern, at least -- by giving us the irresponsibility that the Cardinal has had in regards to the Vignali family.

I think His Eminence is in the mold of typical California politicos...
[/quote]
Agreed.

By every indication in his record, this "good Cardinal" is a disgraceful Churchman who puts his liberal politics first and his Catholic Faith last.

It is a fact that the "good Cardinal" has constistantly encouraged and sponsored every manner of liturgical abuse and heterodoxy in his Archdiocese, has been unsupportive of pro-lifers, has covered up sex-offender priests, and has repeatedly invited blatantly heterodox, pro-homosexual, and pro-abortion speakers to speak at his religious education conferences.

Yet, when the "good Cardinal" speaks on political issues regarding immigration laws, etc., we are told that we must not oppose him on these issues because he speaks for the Church.

I know I will be accused of "ad hominem" for saying this, but they are missing the point. His public support of heterodoxy and immorality does not indeed prove him wrong or right on other issues, but it does show that it is foolish and/or dishonest to act as though it is intrinsically wrong to oppose the "good Cardinal's" opinion on anything, least of all political opinions!

And his pattern of behavior does at least give us reason to question his motives. If the "good Cardinal" were truly so concerned about Catholic morality in public policy, he would not hesitate to speak out against abortion and "gay marriage," and make other "politically incorrect" stands. But he does not, rather giving his support to those who favor these abominations.

I'm afraid the "good Cardinal" is only playing politics with immigration in order to solidify the support of his hispanic "constituency."

[Era Might]

[quote]Let every one bear in mind that most wise teaching of Gregory the Great: "Subjects should be admonished not rashly to judge their prelates, even if they chance to see them acting in a blameworthy manner, lest, justly reproving what is wrong, they be led by pride into greater wrong. They are to be warned against the danger of setting themselves up in audacious opposition to the superiors whose shortcomings they may notice. Should, therefore, the superiors really have committed grievous sins, their inferiors, penetrated with the fear of God, ought not to refuse them respectful submission. [b]The actions of superiors should not be smitten by the sword of the word, even when they are rightly judged to have deserved censure[/b]."

--Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter "Sapientiae Christianae"[/quote]

[Aloysius]

Besides, all anyone is saying is that Mahoney has been in error before and so his motivations are suspect and we shouldn't trust his statement on this issue.

But to disagree with Mahoney on this issue would be to promote a heterodox and possibly heretical ecclesiology in which the Church cannot offer aid to anyone unless they are in good legal standing with the state. That is absolutely false-- if the state wants to enforce its immigration laws then let the state enforce them, but it cannot force priests to be enforcing agents of those laws.

I've heard the argument that Mahoney is misinterpretting the law. But he only commanded disobedience to any law which would prevent priests from offering aid indisciminantly and in that command he is right. If the state ever passes a law that says priests have to verify the citizenship of anyone before offering aid then that law must be disobeyed by any priest of God's Church.