What happened to those homilies about the prodigal son and rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s? Parishioners were surprised with this Sunday’s homily by Peoria Bishop Daniel Jenky comparing President Barack Obama’s health care policies to policies of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin.
During the Sunday homily at St. Mary’s Cathedral Jenky noted that previous governments that “tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches . . . Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services and health care . . . In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda – now seems intent on following a similar path.”
Some have objected that the church should lose its tax exempt status over such advocacy. However, this is less political as hysterical. Churches are allowed to sermonize on public issues and condemn what they view as attacks on their faith.
What is more interesting is the response by Diocese Chancellor Patricia Gibson who insisted that Jenky had merely “offered historical context and comparisons as a means to prevent a repetition of historical attacks upon the Catholic Church and other religions.” A “repetition of historical attacks upon the Catholic Church”? That sounds like reaffirming this bizarre analogy. Gibson assured people, however, that “[w]e have currently not reached the same level of persecution. But Bishop Jenky would say that history teaches us to be cautious. … (He) is concerned that our government is truly treading on one of our most dear freedoms, which is religious freedom.” Well Jenky sure found his audience.
I would venture to suggest that there is a little distance between a squabble over health care and genocidal authoritarian regimes. But that is just me.
Source: Chicagoist
AY,
Since when does a Catholic priest need a Mercedes? They need transportation, but perhaps a Chevrolet Impala would do.
Matt, you seem to have a problem with different parts of the First Amendment. If the Governor gives a policy speech, he is speaking as an elected offficial. If he goes to a church and makes personal remarks–what my Baptist friends call ‘witnessing’–he is speaking for himself. If a minister speaks for or against a given candidate from the pulpit; that is, telling the congregation how to vote, they are gettig close to the edge for a tax exempt organization. What the preacher says in a press conference or an informal conversation in his office, is personal.
Here is what it means to take a vow of poverty….. “Since many priests, brothers and sisters make the vow of poverty, why is it that many of them drive newer cars or even live in good homes?
A. As is explained in Acts 4:32-5 above, the vow of poverty is not related to being poor, but rather to sharing everything in common. Those who embrace the vow of poverty do not claim private ownership of any possessions. Everything they have is used for the common good of the religious Order.
By being free of owning private possessions, those who embrace a religious life are free to testisfy regarding the glorious Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In view of the facts that the priests are expected to be on time to celebrate the Holy Mass or to administer the Last Rite to the sick, this sometime requiring that they travel a great distance, the religious Order that owns the vehicle(s), provides its priests with vehicles that are believed to be reliable to ensure continuity in their ministry of evangelization. The same can be said for the brothers or sisters who are required to teach at local schools or attend to other spiritual work as part of their callings.
Equally, the religious Orders provide their members with proper housing to ensure that they will be able to evangelization effectively. In communities where it is cold, they have furnaces to warm up their houses. Also, it is acceptable to have a television in the common room so the members of the religious Order can watch the local and international news so they are aware of the world situation.
While it is admirable to read of the Saints who had no television, no cars and who lived in poor houses that had no windows, at the same time, it must be recognized that in their days, there were no television or cards and the condition of their houses often met the standard of most houses where they lived. Many of them did not live in countries that had snow on the ground for months.”
Matt,
I am unsure what you mean…..
AY,
It depends on what you mean by poverty. Perhaps it’s subjective.
OS,
Each order decides whether they will take a vow of poverty or not….. I once knew a catholic priest that drove a mercedes……. And got a new one every 2 years…..
OS,
If the Governor gives a speech, is he only speaking for himself? And how about Hitler; he used to get off during his speeches. Do you know who Bartholomew was? He hanged the Governor. Then the British blasted him with grapeshot.
Mad Men: I watched a few shows and found them very well done but disconcerting. Found it to be too close to attitudes of the time. I lived through enough of the misogeny and outrageous double standards and I didn’t need to do it again, nor experience the emotional abuse of the behaviors. Won’t watch it again.
MJ, the crux is whether he is speaking as an individual or making an official policy statement for the church. The IRS has been fairly flexible in their interpretations, in an effort to stay out of the religion business. In the present instance, I think a good case can be made that the Bishop is being an idiot on his own without church help. I have no idea what his boss, a former Hitler Youth, thinks about all this.
Dredd,
Karl Rove is a piece of shit. And you already know what my name is.
OS,
What is a political endorsement? If The Most Reverend is criticizing a current President on his policies, is that not endorsing his opponent?
Matt Johnson 1, April 20, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Do you know what the Hatch Act is?
================================
Yep.
The olde plaque on the olde bishopric: Don’t lay no eggs and they won’t hatch.
MJ,
Any member of a church is able to make any kind of statement they want, no matter how idiotic. The Bishop is living proof of that.
Separation of church and state refers to the fact the government is forbidden to either endorse or prohibit any religion or religious practice. If a church is tax exempt, they may not make political endorsements part of their official doctrine, but that does not keep individual members of the church from saying anything they want on any subject.
There is something about fat head guys who preach.
Otteray,
I think Jesus would find him a good nutritionist who could put him on a restricted diet.
OS,
I know that the Hatch Act doesn’t apply to private organizations such as a church. But what about seperation of church and state?
Jump the shark there much Bishop? Wow, do we really want to do the Nazi comparison and still expect to be taken seriously?
MJ, not sure to what you are referring. The Hatch Act applies to civil service government employees. In no way does it apply to private organizations such as a church.
Do you know what the Hatch Act is? Federal employees who express political views at work are subject to termination. Is that a violation of your First Amendment rights? Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
The order he belongs to does have a “vowed commitment to poverty”.