Thursday, May 27, 2004
WILL CARDINAL GEORGE DENY BISHOP PILLA HOLY COMMUNION
From Bishop Pilla's website:
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/images/rnbwtile.gif
We wonder if Cardinal George has ever visited Bishop Pilla's website and seen Bishop Pilla's "Index of /gayandlesbianfamilyministry/images."
If so, Cardinal George will see that Bishop Pilla not only flies the Rainbow Gay Pride Flag or Sash on his website, but that bishop Pilla also has such Gay Pride symbols as Pink Triangles, headless Rainbow doves descending into Hell, and spinning Rainbow balls. You will have to contact Bishop Pilla directly to find out what that last one means.
Why should Cardinal George care? Well look at his most recent actions against other pseudo-Catholics sporting Gay Pride spirit wear:
From Diogenes at the Catholic World News blog, http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm :
Gay Catholics are planning to make Pentecost Sunday into an agit-prop fest by presenting themselves for communion wearing rainbow sashes. Chicago's Cardinal George has instructed his priests to refuse them, and his reasoning is on target (thanks to Otto-da-Fe for the link):
This of course raises an interesting question. If wearing the rainbow sash "indicates disagreement with church teaching," what then does it mean if a Catholic Bishop flies the Gay Pride Rainbow Sash on his website.
When you visit the Diocese of Cleveland website for gays and homosexuals, you are greeted by numerous gay pride symbols. The index for these images can be found by following this link:
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/images/
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/images/glfmlogo.gif
|
From Bishop Pilla's website:
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/images/rnbwtile.gif
We wonder if Cardinal George has ever visited Bishop Pilla's website and seen Bishop Pilla's "Index of /gayandlesbianfamilyministry/images."
If so, Cardinal George will see that Bishop Pilla not only flies the Rainbow Gay Pride Flag or Sash on his website, but that bishop Pilla also has such Gay Pride symbols as Pink Triangles, headless Rainbow doves descending into Hell, and spinning Rainbow balls. You will have to contact Bishop Pilla directly to find out what that last one means.
Why should Cardinal George care? Well look at his most recent actions against other pseudo-Catholics sporting Gay Pride spirit wear:
From Diogenes at the Catholic World News blog, http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm :
Gay Catholics are planning to make Pentecost Sunday into an agit-prop fest by presenting themselves for communion wearing rainbow sashes. Chicago's Cardinal George has instructed his priests to refuse them, and his reasoning is on target (thanks to Otto-da-Fe for the link):
Tthe cardinal wrote that wearing the sash indicates disagreement with church teaching that gay ual relations are sinful, and therefore those who wear the sash should not receive communion.
"The Rainbow Sash movement wants its members to be fully accepted in the Church not on the same conditions as any Catholic, but precisely as gay," the cardinal wrote. "With this comes the requirement that the Church change her moral teaching which is from the Lord and his Apostles."
This of course raises an interesting question. If wearing the rainbow sash "indicates disagreement with church teaching," what then does it mean if a Catholic Bishop flies the Gay Pride Rainbow Sash on his website.
When you visit the Diocese of Cleveland website for gays and homosexuals, you are greeted by numerous gay pride symbols. The index for these images can be found by following this link:
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/images/
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/images/glfmlogo.gif
Friday, May 14, 2004
Still Silent: The Bishop of the Other Pro-Abortion Catholic Presidential Candidate
From the pagans at "Catholics" for a Free Choice to Kill Children:
At the same time, the movement has not made the most of the change. It is barely mentioned in speeches and newsletters. Unlike the biblical feasts and fatted calves that prolifers rolled out for Bernard Nathanson and Norma McCorvey, the reception to Kucinich's conversion has been far more muted.
That is probably to his liking, but not necessarily helpful in our efforts to convince more middle grounders to shift their priorities more sharply to a prochoice stance. Kucinich's evolution is what we Catholics call a "teaching moment" and one that needs to be used.
Clearly the Catholic bishops understand the significance of Kucinich's conversion. While Senator Daschle has been publicly chastised by his bishop, it is as if Kucinich's bishop, Anthony Pilla of Cleveland, is hoping no one will notice any change.
More enigmatic is the relative lack of notice in the Catholic press. A cursory Google search turned up only one mention in a Catholic paper--Our Sunday Visitor. Neither America nor Commonweal has written a word.
One would expect that this would be seen by both as another opportunity to beat the drum against the Democratic Party and bemoan the personal pain of Jesuits who no longer know for whom to vote. To raise again the specter of the late governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, who we are repeatedly and falsely told was denied the "right" to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention because he was prolife. In reality Casey was denied a speaking role because he refused to endorse the Democratic ticket, a perfectly reasonable criteria for speakers, but one that does not fit the simplistic antiabortion editorial line of either America or Commonweal.
At best, these publications, along with the National Catholic Reporter, might have seen the Kucinich case as an opportunity to look beyond the stale stereotypes of prolife and prochoice towards an articulation of a position that respects that which is best in both prochoice and prolife.
I am convinced that if those Catholic clergy, theologians, public intellectuals and others who know there is no theological basis for the current hierarchical assertion that fetuses are persons from conception would come clean, the Catholic community could make a significant contribution to a public policy and US culture that was both prolife and prochoice. It remains to be seen if Dennis Kucinich will play a meaningful role in that quest.
I know, almost of all of what this group says is a lie. But they got this one right, "it is as if Kucinich's bishop, Anthony Pilla of Cleveland, is hoping no one will notice any change."
Since the comments above, the diocesan spokesman has commented on the Kucinich controversy:
Kucinich changed his longtime anti-abortion position to pro-abortion several months before announcing his presidential bid, said his spokesman, Doug Gordon.
"He has not been banned from communion" Gordon said.
Since Kucinich departed from the church's position on abortion, his bishop has communicated with him, said Robert Tayek, spokesman for Bishop Anthony M. Pilla of Cleveland.
"We are aware that (Kucinich) knows that the diocese is quite disappointed and that we disagree with his positions (on abortion) which are inappropriate," Tayek said. "He understands that there is grave sin. We have not spoken of this publicly before."
How sad that Bishop Pilla has not seen fit to speak about this publicly except through a spokesman to a St. Louis newspaper.
Any bets on what he will end up saying? If anything?
|
From the pagans at "Catholics" for a Free Choice to Kill Children:
At the same time, the movement has not made the most of the change. It is barely mentioned in speeches and newsletters. Unlike the biblical feasts and fatted calves that prolifers rolled out for Bernard Nathanson and Norma McCorvey, the reception to Kucinich's conversion has been far more muted.
That is probably to his liking, but not necessarily helpful in our efforts to convince more middle grounders to shift their priorities more sharply to a prochoice stance. Kucinich's evolution is what we Catholics call a "teaching moment" and one that needs to be used.
Clearly the Catholic bishops understand the significance of Kucinich's conversion. While Senator Daschle has been publicly chastised by his bishop, it is as if Kucinich's bishop, Anthony Pilla of Cleveland, is hoping no one will notice any change.
More enigmatic is the relative lack of notice in the Catholic press. A cursory Google search turned up only one mention in a Catholic paper--Our Sunday Visitor. Neither America nor Commonweal has written a word.
One would expect that this would be seen by both as another opportunity to beat the drum against the Democratic Party and bemoan the personal pain of Jesuits who no longer know for whom to vote. To raise again the specter of the late governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, who we are repeatedly and falsely told was denied the "right" to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention because he was prolife. In reality Casey was denied a speaking role because he refused to endorse the Democratic ticket, a perfectly reasonable criteria for speakers, but one that does not fit the simplistic antiabortion editorial line of either America or Commonweal.
At best, these publications, along with the National Catholic Reporter, might have seen the Kucinich case as an opportunity to look beyond the stale stereotypes of prolife and prochoice towards an articulation of a position that respects that which is best in both prochoice and prolife.
I am convinced that if those Catholic clergy, theologians, public intellectuals and others who know there is no theological basis for the current hierarchical assertion that fetuses are persons from conception would come clean, the Catholic community could make a significant contribution to a public policy and US culture that was both prolife and prochoice. It remains to be seen if Dennis Kucinich will play a meaningful role in that quest.
I know, almost of all of what this group says is a lie. But they got this one right, "it is as if Kucinich's bishop, Anthony Pilla of Cleveland, is hoping no one will notice any change."
Since the comments above, the diocesan spokesman has commented on the Kucinich controversy:
Kucinich changed his longtime anti-abortion position to pro-abortion several months before announcing his presidential bid, said his spokesman, Doug Gordon.
"He has not been banned from communion" Gordon said.
Since Kucinich departed from the church's position on abortion, his bishop has communicated with him, said Robert Tayek, spokesman for Bishop Anthony M. Pilla of Cleveland.
"We are aware that (Kucinich) knows that the diocese is quite disappointed and that we disagree with his positions (on abortion) which are inappropriate," Tayek said. "He understands that there is grave sin. We have not spoken of this publicly before."
How sad that Bishop Pilla has not seen fit to speak about this publicly except through a spokesman to a St. Louis newspaper.
Any bets on what he will end up saying? If anything?
