Messages

31

Your Turn / Re: The end of the catholic church?

« on: August 16, 2018, 10:39:14 PM »

Will the ongoing scandals and the horrific revelations (and there certainly will be more), The resulting lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, and other side effects mean the end of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it?

I don't know, but the PA findings points to more than individual offending priests and negligent bishops. I don't believe that any believing priest would carry on like that. It seems like a collective loss of faith and something else replacing it among many priests. In any event, a subculture of abuse developed that somehow received permission from the hierarchy.  It seemed strongest in the 1970s but we're hearing the lurid details now and will see the repercussions for a while.

32

Your Turn / Re: The Rev. Don McCoid Named Interim Bishop of MNYS

« on: March 02, 2018, 05:57:02 PM »

I haven't been following synod events, but why is an interim bishop needed? Did the current bishop resign? Why?

33

Your Turn / Re: Mockingbird

« on: July 11, 2017, 09:15:47 PM »

Thanks

34

Your Turn / Mockingbird

« on: July 11, 2017, 01:03:03 AM »

I heard a lay preacher at an Episcopal church in Virginia who sounded more Lutheran than most Lutherans. I later learned he helped start a movement known as the Mockingbird. I checked out the website and it does have a lot of Lutheran and Luther-based inspiration.  I'm wondering how influential this movement is in the EC. Anyway, here is the link: http://conference.mbird.com/

35

Your Turn / Re: The State of Catholic Preaching

« on: July 11, 2017, 12:38:00 AM »

The last great communicator for the Roman Catholic Church in America
was Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.  During the 1950's he had his own TV program
on Network television.  It was called "Life Is Worth Living".

Of course Archbishop Sheen was amazing, and his cause for canonization is open and active.  Not to take anything from him, but clearly there are many recent and living Catholics who are extraordinary communicators of the gospel.  Some of these are well known, many are simple parish priests from all over the world.  You should check out the writings and communications of the following for instance:

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/author/bishop-robert-barron/47/
http://archphila.org/category/statements-weekly-columns/
http://www.archbishopgomez.org/search?order=date&q=&s_types=10 
http://blog.adw.org/2017/07/stop-yoking-around-a-homily-for-the-14th-sunday-of-the-year-2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Angelica

Many homilies I have heard in daily Mass left me wondering how a priest can day in and day out prepare and deliver such amazing homilies. A few homilies in the past 10 years have made me cringe a little, hoping my kids were not paying attention too closely.  These are the ones that blatantly teach contrary to what the Church teaches (it is the priest's personal opinion).  This, in my experience, has been quite rare.

Someone said upstream that the central point of the Mass is the (Liturgy of the) Eucharist.  That is true.  We should also include the Liturgy of the Word (which is where the homily falls).  As I understand it, the homily is the one part of the mass that is optional in daily masses.

Actually, I hadn't thought of that, but how true.  My husband attends daily Mass and often I go with him.  Daily, his priest has an excellent homily as does the retired priest who fills in from time to time.

I have heard the Gospel preached at many Catholic churches, but there is often a different structure to a Lutheran sermon and Catholic one. I still find that Catholics speak about a much broader range of topics-- family life, the life of a saint, the importance of confession--and, in the short time allotted for the homily-- leave it at that. I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong. But Lutherans--and the Reformed in my experience-- will return to a basic Gospel message or base a topic within a law and gospel framework. But it's hard to generalize. A Catholic priest I regularly heard sounded like a Lutheran-- and then I heard he had been part of the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue in NY.  In the South, I notice that the Catholic homilies are closer to Protestant ones.

36

Your Turn / Re: Peter Berger, 88, a "progressive," but conservative theologian, dies at 88

« on: July 01, 2017, 12:40:34 PM »

He was a great sociologist and theologian. I think his Lutheranism influenced his sociology and his sociology influenced his Lutheranism. This could be seen in his book A Far Glory. But his Lutheranism was unusual in an American context. He upheld a kind of classical liberal Lutheranism that was critical of both the Lutheran right and left. He also was not a fan of the evangelical catholic Lutheranism of his friend and colleague Richard Neuhaus. I will miss him, R.I.P.

37

Your Turn / Re: Inauguration Day

« on: February 03, 2017, 10:42:30 PM »

I have to say, I just came off Facebook after listening to cable news at the same time, and the Forum has more intelligent and balanced discussion than either of these media. It's strange because several here (me included) are anonymous, yet the demonization and political dramatizing are far less. Maybe it's Lutheranism discouraging the schwarmer (sp?) or enthusiasts that fill our land today? I have been off this board for a while but am encouraged to return.

38

Your Turn / Re: Inauguration Day

« on: February 03, 2017, 10:37:47 PM »

To repeat, since my answer is caught in the above quote: But are they considered minorities in the way that Trump seems to be limiting Christians (and maybe Yazidis) to that category? I hear varying numbers: one source says Obama limited Christian refugees, giving preference to Christians. Then I just saw Chris Wallace on Fox saying that their level of admittance has been about equal. One could make the case that the Islamic State has made even Sunni Muslims minorities in their own land. There is a lot of confusion about this that I hope gets sorted out.

39

Your Turn / Re: Inauguration Day

« on: February 03, 2017, 10:35:22 PM »

It is most definitely NOT a "Muslim ban".  It is a ban on seven countries.  Seven countries that the Obama administration named, not the Trump administration.  Muslims from other nations are not affected.  So it is not, and cannot rightfully be called, a "Muslim ban".

 


To repeat, since my answer is caught in the above quote: But are they considered minorities in the way that Trump seems to be limiting Christians (and maybe Yazidis) to that category? I hear varying numbers: one source says Obama limited Christian refugees, giving preference to Christians. Then I just saw Chris Wallace on Fox saying that their level of admittance has been about equal. One could make the case that the Islamic State has made even Sunni Muslims minorities in their own land. There is a lot of confusion about this that I hope gets sorted out.

40

Your Turn / Re: Inauguration Day

« on: February 03, 2017, 10:00:19 PM »

Just curious, Mrs. Meyer, if you had intended your most recent post to sound as much like the government should act according to Jesus' directives as it seems to sound to me?  Is the role of government to enforce certain moral imperatives, and if so, whose?  Or is the role of government to ensure the safety and security of its (not all the rest of the worlds' countries) citizens?  Please note, I am not making any accusations - but I know that when I feel strongly about something I sometimes make statements to emphasize a point that can be interpreted much further than I had intended.

My post was not intended to sound like the government should act according to Jesus' directives.

Following WWII USA military and government leaders adopted the Marshall Plan to rebuild war torn Europe and the resettle DPs... persons displaced by the war.  These military and government leaders did so according to a carefully though out moral imperative consistent with the moral law written in their hearts.

At the same time Lutheran spiritual leaders banded together in response to the Gospel imperative that we love our neighbor and formed Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services and Lutheran World Relief.  LIRS provided Christians the opportunity to be the face of Christ to DPs who arrived on our shores.  LWR for Lutherans to provide much needed food and clothing to persons who remained in Europe.

Bottom line there is a moral imperative that belongs to us as US citizens and a Gospel imperative originating in who we are as God's new creation.   

Here I offer for your reflection can't we make moral judgements by Mary Midgley, part of the series MIND MATTERS.  The series is not intended to make philosophy easy, but to make philosophy intelligible. Midgley's book deals with ethics and presents the rational for making difficult, but necessary moral judgments.

Discerning the moral imperative is no easy task.  I submit President Trump gave little or no thought to the moral implications of the ban imposed at simply by using the power of his office to sign a piece of paper.

I concur with Mary Midgley's conclusion. It is a great pity when the remarkable gift of making moral judgments is neglected.  USA History demonstrates good that resulted from the moral imperatives that led to the Marshall Plan.  It also reveals the lack of moral judgment that led to WWII camps for Japanese citizens and failure to accept Jews fleeing Germany.  I fear President Trump, in neglecting the hard work of making moral judgments, sets a poor example for US citizens and is harmful refugees world wide.

Marie   

I'd be interested to know how the LIRS dealt with government restrictions on immigration before. I think thy have a record that goes beyond partisanship that could help other organizations and people deal with these issues, particularly in these polarized times.

41

Your Turn / Re: Election followup.

« on: November 19, 2016, 06:12:13 PM »

To use another example from the article, privilege is believing that the direction I'm walking in is my space and others need to move out of my way. (We might consider this attitude to be beyond selfishness to bullying.)

Again though, who have been the ones demanding everyone walk their way? The left has applied all kinds of names (anyone remember the word "deplorable" applied to a set of people?) to those who do not see the world through their lenses. Whose privilege are we being called to deplore? And why does the analogy not apply to "both" sides? I for one am tired of being "bullied" on several fronts by the secular left which insists i have to pay for abortions, support "marriage equality", get in tune with the UN global development goals, support Black Lives Matter, advocate for transgender rights, etc, etc etc. Is it not allowed for reasonable people to civilly disagree anymore?


Lou

And why do all these labels come stuck together? I don't recall Trump being homophobic, so I guess it applies to Pence. But it seems that anyone (including their supporters) who won this race apart from Sanders and Clinton would have had the same derogatory treatment from the left.

42

Your Turn / Re: Election followup.

« on: November 19, 2016, 06:04:41 PM »

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.gvdyApMeN#.uegjGpWZl

The above link ought to be required reading for understanding this election, if for no other reason than that it called it two years ago. This is Bannon talking to the Vatican council on global poverty and it is quite precient.

Bannon acknowledges that any rejection of the global elites will naturally attract an unsavory element, but they are an inconsequential fringe. The movement is not in any way racist, but fringe racists are attracted to it. But that is no different than Communists and felons, and being attracted to the Democrats-- fringe people have to pick a side, too, but simply because they pick your side doesn't mean your side is hostage to their views.

What irks me is that the racism of the new administration is such an article of faith that it requires no evidence in mainstream commentary. I don't think there is a racist bone in Bannon's body. He believes in self-determination for all people, and cheerleads the locals wresting control of their lives from global corporatists whether they be in India, South America, or Europe. Nothing racial about.

Peter,

Thanks for sharing. 

Scott+

So Bannon's hosting the alt.right was just an attempt to corral them into the center-right, non-racist fold?

43

Your Turn / Re: Election followup.

« on: November 19, 2016, 01:34:26 PM »

Sounds like a guy I could like.

That's the disconnect. The progressive Dems hardly know him.

However,  they did get to know Sanders. The DNC shut him down right quick when he claimed mass immigration was a Koch plot to depress wages. That put him at odds with the DNC future voters plan. And thus those who heard him also heard Hillary. And here we are.

The disconnect is that Webb has been "hiding in plain sight" since the Reagan administration. He is a published author of repute in fiction and nonfiction. He is a former Secretary of the Navy. And NOW people find him?

Yes, it's sad. I put this on my facebook page but I know I'll be criticized for "normalizing Trump," whatever that means. I think people like Webb who could play a role and possibly moderate the Trump presidency have more ethics and integrity than many of the protestors who see themselves as the new "resistance."

44

Your Turn / Re: Election followup.

« on: November 19, 2016, 01:23:47 PM »

Our Mollie:

Jim Webb For Secretary Of Defense

http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/15/jim-webb-for-secretary-of-defense/#.WCuMyjO-Ljg.twitter

Yeah, maybe if Webb wasn't scorned by most Democrats, we wouldn't be in the mess we are with Trump. But we'll never have the chance of getting people like Webb because the culture-social justice warriors continue to dominate the party. Webb is in the moderate spirit of the pragmatists like Daniel Patrick Moynihan who didn't fit very well into either party, and it's a shame.

45

Your Turn / Re: Any Clinton supporters inclined to reconsider?

« on: November 11, 2016, 08:59:33 PM »

Here's some fresh meat to gnaw on--if Trump could beat Clinton, what would it have looked like had the GOP nominated Gov. Kasich or Sen Cruz or Sen Rubio?

I suspect that Clinton would have won more easily.  When Trump tapped into the demographic everyone else seemed to ignore or miss he found a key to the winning strategy.  Even though he is immensely wealthy he appealed to those who didn't see him as a career politician. Saying "I was a governor" or "I am a senator," etc. did not appear to offer a great advantage. You had to be seen as an 'outsider.' It was a group that was very anti-Washington.  The Democrats should have seen this in Bernie Sanders, the populist from their side.  Given where the popular vote was with Clinton, I can't imagine a scenario where any of the above men win.

There were other populist choices among the Democrats from the beginning. Someone like Jim Webb of Virginia was a Democrat and populist but he was more or less ignored and even scolded by the party. He didn't line up on all the social and political issues. Check out his record-- he was among the most solid prospects, bringing to mind Daniel Patrick Moynihan-- another politician who drew both from conservative and liberal sources. People can talk all they want about how Sanders may have won but he still was further to the left on many issues than most Americans. Democrats have to learn to be more pragmatic and not be fixated on divisive social/culture war issues.