Chicago, Ill., Sep 29, 2018 / 09:30 am (CNA).- The recent case of Chicago’s Fr. Paul Kalchik has generated considerable publicity, and left more than a few questions unanswered.
Kalchik was “temporarily” removed from his post at Resurrection Parish in northwestern Chicago last week, following a Sept. 14 incident in which a rainbow banner which had previously hung in the church building was burned by parishioners, with Kalchik in attendance.
Kalchik announced Sept. 2 that he planned to burn the flag publicly on Sept. 29. He acknowledged recently that the archdiocese had instructed him not to proceed with that plan.
Almost everything else about the case remains disputed.
The Archdiocese of Chicago told CNA recently that Fr. Kalchik had agreed not to burn the banner. Kalchik, in a recent interview, claimed that he was told not to conduct the specific Sept. 29 public event he had previously announced.
An archdiocesan spokesperson also told CNA that Kalchik’s departure from the parish – which the archdiocese says is temporary – was not linked to the banner burning at all, but had been “in the works” for some weeks.
Chicago’s Cardinal Blase Cupich was apparently concerned about “a number of issues” at the parish. The archdiocese added that Kalchik’s departure was arranged by “mutual agreement” and that he is presently receiving “pastoral support” for unspecified needs.
Kalchik says his departure was anything but a mutual decision.
The priest says that two diocesan officials, priests, arrived at his rectory and ordered him off the premises, threatening to call the police if he refused to comply. According to Kalchik, the priests said that he would be sent to St. Luke’s Institute, a Maryland psychiatric assessment and treatment center for priests.
The Archdiocese of Chicago declined CNA’s request for confirmation or denial of those claims.
What are a pastor’s rights?
Amid the conflicting narratives surrounding Kalchik, a question emerges: what canonical rights does a parish priest actually have?
While a priest’s ministry is dependent upon that of his bishop, and every priest promises respect and obedience to the bishop at ordination, it is a common mistake to think of a pastor as a kind of branch manager or tenant farmer of the bishop. The pastor’s canonical role is much different than that.
Canon law treats the subject of a parochus – the pastor of a parish – very explicitly.
Canon 515 §1 of the Code of Canon Law says that each parish is to be entrusted to the care of a parochus, who serves as the shepherd of the community under the authority of the bishop.
The same canon makes clear that the parish itself is not a piece of land, a church, or any other collection of buildings. A parish is properly understood as a group of the faithful, usually defined as those living in a particular area.
The relationship between the pastor and his parish is, in a technical sense, personal: a relationship between persons, defined and circumscribed by law.
In canon law, every parish has its own “juridic personality,” meaning that is a freestanding legal entity, with its own property, and its own rights and obligations.
The Code clarifies that the pastor represents the parish “in all juridic affairs,” and it is his responsibility to lead the community and decides what is in its best interests.
Of course, the bishop is free to establish policies for all parishes in his diocese- called particular laws- provided that they do not conflict with universal canon law or divine law. But within the boundaries established by canon law, divine law, and civil law, it is the pastor’s job to lead the parish, and to determine, prayerfully and consultatively, how best to govern the community with which has has been entrusted.
There have been cases where the pastor and the bishop disagree about parish needs, and canon law provides mechanisms to address such conflicts, including processes of appeal from episcopal decisions and directions, and canonical courts in which they can be adjudicated.
A bishop and pastor might disagree, for example, about parish property. A bishop may direct a pastor to sell a piece of property, or to give it over to meet a diocesan need, and the pastor may judge that to be a bad idea. Such a dispute could become a matter of “hierarchical recourse,” if the pastor appeals a decision he does not support. When disputes over such matters are appealed to Rome, the Congregation for Clergy is often obliged to remind the bishop to respect the rights of the pastor.
Similarly, within the scope of universal and particular canon law and the teachings of the Church, a pastor also has the autonomy to teach and preach in a way he believes is best suited to the needs of the people.
This does not mean, of course, that bishops have no authority over parish pastors. In addition to establishing particular laws for his diocese, a bishop has the authority to oblige any priest or member of the faithful to do, or not do, a particular thing he may determine to be detrimental to the wider community. He can do this through a precept- a kind of canonical induction directed at a specific person or situation.
Since a precept is a formal legal action, a pastor has the right to appeal it, provided he does so according to the procedures established by canon law. But he does not have the right to simply ignore a legitimately issued precept.
Bishops also have the authority to appoint pastors. Except for very exceptional cases, canon law gives the diocesan bishop a free choice to appoint whatever priest he thinks is most suitable for the job. This is understandable, since the pastor carries out his role “under the authority of the diocesan bishop in whose ministry of Christ he has been called to share.”
A bishop is not free, however, to remove or transfer a pastor from his office without following a detailed and non-negotiable process defined by canon law. This procedure can only be initiated if a priest has met one or more conditions for removal outlined in the law, which include actions “gravely detrimental or disturbing to ecclesiastical communion,” along with permanent infirmity of mind or body, a loss of good reputation among his flock, and neglect of his duties in the parish.
Even if a priest has met those conditions, before he can be removed from the office of pastor, the bishop must formally consult with certain priests appointed by the diocesan priests’ council, he must allow the pastor the opportunity to see the evidence against him and make a defense, and he must discuss that defense with the priests appointed to consult with him.
During this whole process, the bishop can neither remove the pastor, nor appoint a replacement.
If the bishop does issue a decree of removal, the priest has the right to appeal his case to Rome, where the Congregation for Clergy, or eventually the Apostolic Signatura, can examine the decision and the process used to reach it.
A bishop also has the prerogative, in certain limited circumstances, to declare that a priest is impeded from exercising priestly ministry, but that must be done through a delineated process as well. A bishop could also withdraw certain faculties for ministry from a priest, but only if he has good reasons, and only if he has followed the procedural requirements of canon law.
In short, while no priest has a right to an assignment or to ministry, once a priest is appointed a pastor, he cannot be removed from his office, or from his ministry, without serious cause, and without observation of the law’s procedural requirements. Similarly, prohibiting a priest from residing in a certain place can only be done in the limited circumstances allowed by canon law.
This also means that, except in very limited and unusual circumstances, a bishop is not within his rights to attempt to remove the legitimate pastor of a parish from its property, or to threaten to have the police do so. Were a bishop to do such a thing without observing canonical requirements, and the priest appeal to Rome, it is likely that the Vatican would order the pastor to be reinstated.
Neither can a bishop compel any priest to undergo a psychological evaluation or engage in psychological treatment. While a bishop might condition future assignments on a “clean bill of mental health,” he can not force a priest to be diagnosed or treated against his will, or to disclose the details of his mental health if he does not wish to do so.
Canon 519 says that the pastor exercises “the pastoral care of the community committed to the pastor under the authority of the diocesan bishop in whose ministry of Christ he has been called to share, so that for that same community he carries out the functions of teaching, sanctifying, and governing.”
The authority of the diocesan bishop is not absolute. Nor is the autonomy of the pastor. But both exist, as defined by canon law, for the service of the Church, and the salvation of souls. Understanding the authority of bishops, and the rights of pastors, is important at a moment in the Church’s life when so much seems unclear, and when many questions remain unanswered.
[…]
There is good reason to believe that Vance will promote the pro-life cause as VP despite the recent politically expedient comments he made in support of access to the abortion pill. He campaigned hard against the abortion legalization initiative in Ohio last fall and has a perfect record on the issue as a Senator. He has not declared himself “pro-choice” and has made it clear that he wants judges that will not impose abortion by judicial fiat and opposes federal funding for it. He deserved to be called out, but his critics need to keep some perspective.
I’m hoping for the best also.
It’s very disappointing that more American voters are not on board as they should be on this human rights issue but Mr Vance is not our enemy. I think we can work with him.
In politics that’s the best you can hope for sometimes.
I agree.
Idea for a t-shirt – “I’m voting for the guy with the pierced ear”
Dude, that’s an awesome idea. Hilarious comment.
Part of my own story includes the chairman of my dissertation committee (1970s). A transparent fellow, formerly an anthropologist who had worked in the Afghanistan of the 1960s to reform the education system. In a small group around the coffee table, he switched tracks completely and confided:
“My wife is Catholic and I am Episcopalian…and I don’t really know if God talks [!] to people.” The ACHILLES HEEL of the entire secularist education system and worldview! Does God ever talk to people?
All to the point that the historical and even alarming event of the INCARNATION, Jesus Christ, is not just another a religious “expression.” But, rather, the self-disclosure (!) of the Triune God. Christians listen to “the Word made flesh.” And, Catholics are also converted to the sacramental Real Presence which/Who assembles the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. More than a sola Scriptura congregation, or a synodal convener of some polyglot Worldreligion.
Moreover, in the reasonably distinct SECULAR DOMAIN of robust and political rough and tumble, however, it is quite enough to simply respect the universal and already inborn Natural Law. Beyond respect for the moral absolutes, the Catholic Social Teaching (CST) does offer added perspectives, but: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 36). The CST is the negation of all ideology…
Plenty of room there for robust dialogue and negotiation on the means for communities to define and achieve their moral and complex ends.
The attentive reader will be able to spot the eyebrow-raising statements, in light of aligning oneself with a political platform that doesn’t merely wait for a better, politically possible reality in order to defend unborn human life, but has scrubbed it and actively allowed for the opposite. One may also notice that Sen. Vance has deleted statements defending the unborn from his website, all presumably for political expediency. Will we ever learn not to rush and promote public converts especially for their Catholicism, before they are allowed time to develop and/or consistently express doctrinal coherence? Or in the case of abortion, before they are aware of the need to express one’s “absolute personal opposition” (Pope John Paul II) when faced with political realities that make the Good “impossible” (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Daniel. Vance’s initials JD appear to be John Donald. His duplicitous adoration of his great leader comes with a signifcant historical flip.
Before and during his 3 years as a fledging US senator his hypocractical moment was when he fierecely disparaged and unCatholic like said…
he was a “never-Trump guy.” “the reason, ultimately, that I am not … is because I think that (Trump) is the most-raw expression of a massive finger pointed at other people.”
Trump is “reprehensible” and an “idiot.”
In another deleted tweet following the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape on which Trump said fame enabled him to grope women, Vance wrote: “Fellow Christians, everyone is watching us when we apologize for this man. Lord help us.”
Trump was “unfit for our nation’s highest office.”
“I’m a Never Trump guy,” Vance said in an interview with Charlie Rose in 2016, according to Politico. “I never liked him.”
Vance also deleted a tweet saying he found Trump reprehensible from October 2016. “My god what an idiot.”
Vance has not mentoned his support for Project 2025. The so called GOP “platform”. If you haven’t read it you should. The most egrious part is “Install A Totalitarian Administration”. A monarchy!
Which must mean that, per Harris, Biden did “praise racists” opposed to busing, and therefore her attitude could not evolve within the political reality of assuming the office, and her support of Biden has ulterior motives, similar to Vance/Trump, correct?
Grieving the departure of the public defense of the unborn, for political “reality”, does not equate to therefore supporting the Progressive celebration of abortion as emancipation, the enabling of the mutilation of gender dysphoria subjects, etc.
The “lesser of two evils” remains an applicable description of the situation.
Mr. Morgan, I’m partial to constitutional monarchies. It would save us the election circuses we endure every 4 years. But that’s not what Donald Trump or any other GOP candidate has in mind. And again, please don’t go down that rabbit hole.
Mr. Vance was correct that many people thought of Donald Trump as a giant “finger” at the elites. And that’s still true. But after his term in office he earned more credit than just a protest against the status quo.
If you venture down that TDS rabbit hole please say hello to my friend from grade school. She’s been down there incommunicado since last November.
🙂
Balderdash on the 2025 GOP Platform.
I’m not sure if your are calling Project 2025 bunkum, or my article?
Thanks.
Project 2025 is not any part of the Trump platform, per Trump himself. Once again you are simply spouting talking points.
Morgan D brings into discussion a very significant set of issues regarding his concerns about Project 2025. I think it is less that adequate to argue as Michael Caldwell and Athanasius have done in providing a one or two sentence rebuttal that is essentially dismissive of Morgan D’s stated concerns. The Heritage Foundation has been around for decades and were major players in policy direction for the Regan Administration therefore thy have influence in the heavy hitting end of the spectrum of influence. Secondly Project 2025 was authored almost entirely by individuals who were at the apex level of Pres Trump’s admin when in office and are likely to hold positions high up in Pres Trump’s admin if elected. Several spoke at the convention.
Secondly it is accurate to acknowledge that together with recent rulings of the Supreme Court coupled with some relevant Project 2025 proposals, the checks and balances on executive power are effectively removed. The posibility that foundation principles of the Constitution become open to the Presidents interpretation seems a likely outcome. The Republic then has the potential to move in the direction of that of an Emperor. Surely this is worthy of careful, informed and impartial examination.
Donald Trump pays little attention to the Establishment. There are some good people in the Heritage Foundation but I doubt Mr. Trump pays a great deal of attention to them either.
Americans voted for President Trump the first time around because they wanted a disruptor against the Establishment and status quo. Not someone who took instructions from a Reagan era think tank.
I personally wish Donald Trump would pay a little more heed to folks at places like the Heritage Foundation but that’s not who he is.
You are concerned about nothing, and you are mindlessly parroting DNC talking points here. At his Grand Rapids, MI speech, Trump clearly stated that he does not endorse or support Project 2025. He would know, after all. You are simply spreading lies, and that’s not appropriate. One cannot have legitimate concerns about something that isn’t legitimate. It needs no further elaboration.
It seems to me upon further investigation that Project 2025 is very relevant to this election cycle and the political agenda Trump intends to pursue from, as he has often mentioned, from Day One. To dismiss Morgan’s point by offering Trumps recent statements of distancing is not an acceptable rebuttal.
I will begin with this observation:
Kevin Roberts, the Heritage Foundation president and the architect of Project 2025, the conservative thinktank’s road map for a second Trump presidency, has close ties and receives regular spiritual guidance from an Opus Dei.
Trump has repeatedly referenced the Heritage Foundation in recent years and particularly in the aftermath of his 2016 victory.
Trump knows personally most of the major contributors to the document because they worked in his administration. The authors include Trump’s former Cabinet secretaries, top White House officials and senior aides — including former Trump appointees to EPA, the Interior Department and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Thomas Homan, former acting director of the US immigration and customs enforcement agency, responsible for the disastrous tactic of separating children from their families is a major contributor.
The list goes on.
What is of some concern at present is are the recent actions of the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court Justice’s wife flying the US flag upside down…. here we have another example of the influence of Opus Dei. Leonard Leo is a conservative activist who has led the Republican mission to install the rightwing majority in the supreme court and finances many of the groups signed on to Project 2025.
[Nov. 18, 2023, 6:17 AM GMT+11 / Updated Nov. 18, 2023, 10:18 AM GMT+11
By Katherine Doyle]
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/donations-surged-groups-linked-conservative-project-2025-rcna125638
We can see that the Heritage Foundation are heavy hitters in the Republican Parties history:
Major input into President Regans policy suit.
Engaged in restructuring Iraq with policy and personnel.
The Trump Campaign’s other formal policy document Agenda 47 has many close parallels to Project 2025
I am of the opinion that the agenda outlined by Project 2025 is central to Trumps agenda and will be perused with haste from Day One if he is elected.
You write that James Donald Vance ‘adores’ Trump? Seriously, dude, you need to get out more. Any Catholic worth his salt understands that adoration is directed to God alone. Not even the BVM gets it from us.
Iv’e been to a DUDE ranck though. And, I got plenty of fresh air. Don’t follow Trump by using vial disparagements. I do not.
Thanks.
“Don’t follow Trump by using vial disparagements.”
Says the guy who disparages Trump at every turn. Pot meet kettle, etc.
I am actually concerned that too much is being made of Vance’s Catholicism.
Cleo, Tmthat’s an odd comment for a Catholic to make (forgive me if I assumed you are a Catholic but are not).
As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”(EV 73; also CPL 4). (Source: Priests for Life “Voters Guide for Serious Catholics”)
Trump/Vance are doing exactly what Pope John Paul II has acknowledged as “licit:” “supporting proposals aimed at limiting the harm done” by abortion laws that they cannot fully undo at this time and expect to get elected in this political climate in America.
The truth (if we are willing to face it) is that we are living in a Constitutional Republic that is fading away. The moral character of the country is such that it cannot be sustained. I encourage readers to convince me otherwise (please don’t make appeals based on pure sentimentality).
It would behoove my fellow Catholics to listen to an interview with J.D. Vance at the NAPA Institute Conference three years ago. Here goes…
https://youtu.be/Mhgz-03M-7w?si=c96QHVecr9guIf35
Having now been behooved, I thank you for this link…especially Vance’s criticism about corporate boardrooms and the culture wars.
Recalling, here, that in 2015 corporate America formally positioned itself in favor of gay “marriage”. As broadly reported and rewarded in the media, AT&T and Verizon, Dow Chemical, Bank of America, General Electric, Coca-Cola and Pepsi, Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft, and the San Francisco Giants, were among nearly four hundred corporations and business organizations that weighed in with probably duplicate amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. Together they orchestrated their dollar-sign argument for a constitutional right to the oxymoron same sex “marriage.” The reason: stock market numbers might benefit (very, very marginally) from spending patterns (one billion dollars: sounds big, but not even an infinitesimal fraction of the $20 Trillion annual GNP).
In this hostile takeover by the tribal LGBTQ religion, the empty-suit business world gave an entirely new meaning to the term “bottom line.”
I assume the readership here are aware that JD Vance’s entire career and upward trajectory has been financially supported and facilitated by Peter Thiel, who in 2017 married his long term partner Mat Danzeisen.
Many of us have worked for employers or corporations that differed with us ideologically or politically. How does that signify?
I assume the readership above IS aware that Mother Teresa received $1.25 million from one Charles Keating, a major player in the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s. So? That Vance’s campaign may have taken money from a man practicing homosexuality proves what? Nothing!
I once inadvertently gave $1000 to Francis’ Peter Pence Collection. That in no way means that I agree with its leader or its goals. I entirely disagree with the idea of structured global charity drives; funds have sometimes been proven subject to dishonorable misappropriation. I do not particularly like the personality and leadership style of Francis. And many organizations and persons that I do approve don’t receive a dime from me. So what!?
My first point would be to say that such association when applying to a Democrat candidate would elicit much opposition from many here. So this situation at least indicates the existence of confirmation bias.
I did not specify what this financial and other support for JD Vance did prove but proof is likely not the appropriate word here. The support implies a common agenda, overt or hidden. The relationship gives Peter Theil some influence simply because when such consistent and significant support is given it is wise to assume something is expected in return. My main point would be this is worth exploration. JD Vance is direct in line to become POTUS if Trump is elected and he is a relative newcomer with limited experience. There surely would be many more qualified for the position of potentially leading the nation. Personally I am somewhat mystified by Trumps choice of VP.
Certainly people with diverse views on some issues can find common ground on others. Why not?
You need to consider which issues are being promoted. That’s what counts.
To John Allan, wondering about intersecting interests of Thiel, Vance, and Trump, see Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/content/408fb864-5831-4b1d-beef-fd1966b3beed
If he is truly converted to Catholicism, his first order of business is to apply Catholic principles of justice and compassion to the plight of the Palestinians.
Unfortunately, like Trump, he greenlights the ongoing murderous ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
Chris Albrecht: There was no killing until the Palestinians in Gaza invaded, raped, killed and kidnapped innocent civilian Israeli, American and other nationals who were minding their own business. It’s no different than the invasion of our Southern border by illegals who come here and rape, murder and bring their Fentanyl to sell to our children. Your version of reality is woefully warped.
Thank you
If Vance did anything like what you want, he wouldn’t be a senator let alone vice-presidential candidate. If trimming your sails is essential when it comes to abortion, it is even more so when discussing foreign policy in the Middle East. You have to rhetorically bend the knee to Israel if you are to survive in American politics. BTW, the same principle applies in Europe as well. Even Orban sides with Israel. The Israelis have committed outrageous injustices and brutalities against the Palestinians. That doesn’t mean that the conduct of the Palestinians has been in any way admirable – it has not been. The relevant point is that the US unjustifiably and, contrary to its national interests, supports Israel to the hilt. Vance, despite some his almost obligatory comments, is a voice of reason and peace through strength on international affairs.
Of course, there is a problem of israeli dominion over american political speech, but resistance must begin somewhere, and we need moral principles and a more than natural courage. I would point out as an example of standing up to Israel Rep. Thomas Massie–who explained on Tucker Carlson’s program that every republican and democrat has an assigned AIPAC handler to make sure that they submit to Israel. Massie stands up to Israel and wins. It can be done.
As Joan of Arc said: fight! God will provide the victory!
Chris Albrecht. Who should listen to an anti-semite?
A fine Catholic columnist, Joseph Sobran, once wrote:
An “anti-semite” used to mean someone who hated Jews.
Now it means someone whom Jews hate.
This quote is relevant to today’s controversies.
Joseph Sobran was a brilliant writer and I always looked forward to his articles.
Perhaps his illness played a part in his going off the rails. It was a shame.
May he rest in peace.
Mrs. Cracker: Sobran did not “go off the rails,” rather he had the courage to touch the “third rail” of American politics: the issue of Jewish/Israeli control over what constitutes acceptable political discourse. This control is destroying the American Republic.
Massie is terrific, but he is neither a senator nor a vice-presidential candidate. Also, he merely objected to the aid package to Israel, largely on the grounds that, with our towering national debt, we should not be giving aid to a First World nation. Of course, that was enough to put him in the crosshairs of AIPAC. I am sure he would offer much deeper criticisms of Israel and its lobby among friends. The same is true of Vance, I am confident.
I hope that you are right and I have not given up on Vance, but so far he looks like a neo-con who has simply decided to pivot a half-step, because of the many failures of the neo-con agenda. thus it is easy now to oppose aid to Ukraine or criticize the now distant Iraqi invasion.
But he argued recently for “hitting Iran hard” (that is, with violence,–and he approved of Trump’s murder of Solemani)
and “focusing on China” as the main enemy, and, by implication, he continues to press ardently for an “endlosung” for the Palestinians (i.e. the complete removal of Palestinians from that region of the middle east).
It is a mere shift of emphasis, tactically and optically necessary.
Same agenda–America as Israel’s golem, hater of dem Ay-rabs and dem Muslims, and the overweight bully on the world playground.
Re: the Palestinian issue. if a person votes for an arms and aid to israel package, *knowing full well that it will be used to wage war on the civilians of Gaza–he is complicit.* God will hold Vance accountable.
But pray that God may amend him–and Trump.
It is not too late. “The heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord” (Proverbs?)
All it takes to end the war is to for Hamas to surrender and free the captives. At least one or twwo kidnapped victims are American citizens. Hopefully if Trump is elected we will hear good news from the Middle East. Sort of like when Reagan took office and our citizens were being held by Iran.
For all intents and purposes it’s Iran all over again today.
trump should be in prison.
Okay. Why don’t you fill out the appropriate form to put him there? You don’t have it? Well, back to school with you then. September is only a month away.
The Palestinians who committed and/or supported the October 7 massacre, have no just call for our support. They are thenauthors of their own fates. Hamas hates Christians as much as it does Jews. It is an arm of the Muslim world domination culture.
I doubt Vance will save us.
No one who is truly Christian would expect anyone but Christ to save us. Only Christ can save us from our own individual wantoness.
De above – It’s early days. I think people are putting a lot of expectations on Vance.
I am disappointed in the lack of nuance in his position on mifepristone. As I understand it, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case because the presenters didn’t have standing, i.e. they lacked the necessary qualifications to present the case. That’s not the same as approving mifepristone.
Yes, Cleo that’s what I understood also.
And currently, each state has the right to restrict abortifacient drugs. So both chemical & surgical feticides can be banned state by state.
Further to De above – Fr. De Souza has an article on Vance’s Catholicism today, July 19, in The Catholic Thing.
I think Fr. De Souza’s assessment is more tentative, wait-and-see than I’m getting from many commentators.
This is the time for Catholic thought to grow. Morality must be seen in terms of an ascent towards transcendence that can be realized only by the free and mature individual. This implies both a kind of gnosis by which conflicting transcendental invitations are experienced and a conscious synthesizing of the opposites. Epistemology and politics are challenged to expand. This can be seen as where Catholic thought must go rather than where it has been.
Frank Ruppert
You’re insight is enlightening, appreciated and spoken truthfully. In summation, we are all a work in progress in our search for the Wisdon, Knowledge, Understanding of God, His Merciful Love and Abundance of Grace.
i certainly hope trump does not get in. i cant believe anybody would actually want a felon to be in the white house. he should be in prison.
i certainly hope biden does not get in. i cant believe anybody would actually want a hair-sniffing groomer to be in the white house. he should be in prison.
Holy Scripture says: “Put not your trust in princes.” I’m sure this applies to Vice-Princes, too.
Mrs. Cracker above – Thanks for the confirmation of my understanding of the Supreme Court’s action on mefipristone. I read an article explaining it but haven’t been able to re-find it.
I wasn’t clear that each state could ban abortifacient drugs. Perhaps we will eventually hear that from Vance. “Hope springs eternal”.
Abortifacient drugs are a controlled substance in our state Cleo.
Got it. Vance has proven his Catholic allegiance at Napa. His conversion to the faith is an example for others. But, his litany of disparagements against Trump proves he isn’t quite there yet. His acceptance of Project 2025, the Trump, not GOP “platform” shows he is an extremist. 2025 is a plan to OVERHALL GOVERNMENT. Paul Dans is the director along with Trumps inner-circle advisers. Ben Carson, Ken Cuccinelli, Rick Dearborn, Jennifer Hazelton, Peter Navarro, Steven Miller… Read it.
https://democracyforward.org/the-peoples-guide-to-project-2025/
Thanks.
Every election cycle we get fearmongering talking points like “Project 2025”, January 6th, Christian Nationalism,etc.
There are good people in the Heritage Foundation but President Trump doesn’t take marching orders from them.
Maybe the crowd who cant stop attacking Trump and Vance for not being even MORE pro-life, should direct their energies toward the current Pope. He appears to have a lukewarm approach to the subject. He has provided a smiling warm welcome to those DEM politicians who have given public full throated support of PRO-abortion policy loud and clear. ( Here I mean his welcome to Biden, Pelosi and Whoopie Goldberg, etc, who have met the Pope in person.) NO American politician has any obligation at all to support a pro-life agenda, although many do. Its unfortunate but true that many who voice pro-life support end up voted out of office. If they had an opportunity to remain IN office, they could have helped enact MANY policies which would have assisted our poor and marginalized citizens. Voicing extreme pro-life legislation will almost guarantee they will be voted out of office and then able to accomplish NOTHING. Failing to vote for politicians who appear to be friendly to the pro-life agenda in at least SOME measure is cutting off your nose to spite your race. Like it or not, compromise MUST be used on this topic. Otherwise you will not even get the “half a loaf”. You will in fact get NONE. How on earth does that help anyone or save ANY babies??? Progress is most often made in increments, not in one fell swoop. If you cant see the difference between a party which supports abortion til the day of birth, and one which might allow some rare exceptions but does not support 3rd trimester abortion at all, do us all a favor and stay at home election day.
LJ above – Thanks for your comments.
The battle continues and you’re right, Pope Francis’ welcome mat isn’t helping. And he doesn’t have the problem (excuse) of having to win power.
Retort to Carl. I want to reply to your comment on disparagement of Trump, but you no longer seem to accept a reply.
Carl E. Olson
JULY 23, 2024 AT 12:04 PM
“Don’t follow Trump by using vial disparagements.”
“Says the guy who disparages Trump at every turn. Pot meet kettle, etc.”
Give me an example.
I don’t use disparagements like, “crooked Joe, crooked Kamala, wackjob E. Jean Carroll, AG Barr a fat pig, lock her up Hilliary Clinton…
Pot? I cook with a pot and a kettle every day.
Thanks
I think in the first place it’s not clear if you meant to write vile but you put “vial”.
If you meant “vial disparagements” it would be an image of disparagements lumped into a sort of container. Like pot and kettle in a combined metaphorical sense.
If you meant “vile” then you’re emphasizing the disparaging and that you think Trump doesn’t deserve that. Pot and kettle in traditional metaphor.
Trump has disappointed A LOT OF PEOPLE and I am not surprised it isn’t going over well. He’s also multiplying his overlaying of his self-management, eg., as we just saw, “I’m going to tell you what I experienced with that bullet and then I never want to have to talk about it again.” Since when there’s Presidential immunity for that?
Some tenants pay rent and suddenly they’re never accountable again. Trump wants to live in your head rent free (not my metaphor but it’s spectacular! at least it’s not VP Harris!) and then even with exempting himself from paying rent he wants to then be unaccountable! Haha good one!
John Allan,
Every election cycle either party comes up with scare tactics and hype. Project 2025 is just the latest one for the DNC. I haven’t seen it getting much traction lately so they probably have other plans in the works to distract voters with
And Opus Dei is not a powerful, sinister organization. That’s more spin.