Comments on: Fr. Frank Pavone Defends John Carr of the USCCB http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/02/06/fr-frank-pavone-defends-john-carr-of-the-usccb/ Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective. Thu, 24 May 2012 21:29:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Tito Edwards http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/02/06/fr-frank-pavone-defends-john-carr-of-the-usccb/#comment-20552 Tito Edwards Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:37:53 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=17368#comment-20552 Mike, There is no need for that type of demonization of the USCCB. Although I don't agree with the direction they're heading, I don't find it necessary to degrade it. Mike,

There is no need for that type of demonization of the USCCB. Although I don’t agree with the direction they’re heading, I don’t find it necessary to degrade it.

]]> By: Mary http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/02/06/fr-frank-pavone-defends-john-carr-of-the-usccb/#comment-20551 Mary Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:19:53 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=17368#comment-20551 Re: John Carr: "Tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you what you are." Fr. Pavone is a good priest but a very naive one. Or perhaps he fears the power of the USCCB. Re: John Carr: “Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you what you are.” Fr. Pavone is a good priest but a very naive one. Or perhaps he fears the power of the USCCB.

]]> By: GodsGadfly http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/02/06/fr-frank-pavone-defends-john-carr-of-the-usccb/#comment-20550 GodsGadfly Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:34:29 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=17368#comment-20550 1. I admire Fr. Pavone, but he has plenty of his own issues (saying it's OK to vote for a pro-choice Republican over a pro-life Democrat, supporting the NRLC's "keep abortion legal as long as possible" agenda with its numerous compromises, supporting the do-nothing "partial birth abortion ban", etc.) In other words, I admire Fr. Pavone for what he himself says and does. I'm not a fan of the organizations he chooses to support, especially when his career was springboarded by Judie Brown to begin with. 2. I think it's *very* important to distinguish between "the bishops" and "the USCCB," which is a useless bureaucracy in DC that, in the end, has very little to do with "the bishops." The merger of the old "NCCB" with the old "USCC" (where all these problematic associations occur) is the real problem, IMO. 3. There is a big difference between charity, social justice and political activism. Charity is a personal choice. The merit in charity is in one person's free will decision to perform an act of love for another person. Jesus acted in charity to centurions and Samaritans, but He did so in love for them as indiviuals, to help them as people. He did not support them qua being centurions or Samaritans. Social justice is the remediation of economic ills the way criminal justice is the remediation of interpersonal ills. Much of this funding question has to do with neither. It has to do with the bishops giving money to activist organizations when they should be giving that money directly to people who need it. I would have just as much problem with the USCCB funding NRLC as ACORN. When we give our money to the Church, our expectation is that that money will go to actually help people or build up the Church. I'd rather tthe USCCB fund crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies than fund ALL or NRLC. If they want to support the poor, send the money directly to shelters and food pantries. Better yet, give the money back to Catholic religious orders that engage in these ministries. Imagine if this money were just paid back to Catholic schools, hospitals and ministries, instead of paid to secular organizations. 4. Yes, "Guilt by association" is a bit overdone. But much of this goes beyond "guilt by association." We're talking about organizations that actively support agendas contrary to the faith, and officials at USCCB who have either worked for those organizations or served on their boards of directors, etc. 1. I admire Fr. Pavone, but he has plenty of his own issues (saying it’s OK to vote for a pro-choice Republican over a pro-life Democrat, supporting the NRLC’s “keep abortion legal as long as possible” agenda with its numerous compromises, supporting the do-nothing “partial birth abortion ban”, etc.) In other words, I admire Fr. Pavone for what he himself says and does. I’m not a fan of the organizations he chooses to support, especially when his career was springboarded by Judie Brown to begin with.
2. I think it’s *very* important to distinguish between “the bishops” and “the USCCB,” which is a useless bureaucracy in DC that, in the end, has very little to do with “the bishops.” The merger of the old “NCCB” with the old “USCC” (where all these problematic associations occur) is the real problem, IMO.
3. There is a big difference between charity, social justice and political activism. Charity is a personal choice. The merit in charity is in one person’s free will decision to perform an act of love for another person. Jesus acted in charity to centurions and Samaritans, but He did so in love for them as indiviuals, to help them as people. He did not support them qua being centurions or Samaritans.

Social justice is the remediation of economic ills the way criminal justice is the remediation of interpersonal ills.

Much of this funding question has to do with neither. It has to do with the bishops giving money to activist organizations when they should be giving that money directly to people who need it. I would have just as much problem with the USCCB funding NRLC as ACORN.

When we give our money to the Church, our expectation is that that money will go to actually help people or build up the Church. I’d rather tthe USCCB fund crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies than fund ALL or NRLC. If they want to support the poor, send the money directly to shelters and food pantries. Better yet, give the money back to Catholic religious orders that engage in these ministries.

Imagine if this money were just paid back to Catholic schools, hospitals and ministries, instead of paid to secular organizations.

4. Yes, “Guilt by association” is a bit overdone. But much of this goes beyond “guilt by association.” We’re talking about organizations that actively support agendas contrary to the faith, and officials at USCCB who have either worked for those organizations or served on their boards of directors, etc.

]]> By: Tito Edwards http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/02/06/fr-frank-pavone-defends-john-carr-of-the-usccb/#comment-20549 Tito Edwards Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:33:53 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=17368#comment-20549 I'm with Phillip on this still. I’m with Phillip on this still.

]]> By: Phillip http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/02/06/fr-frank-pavone-defends-john-carr-of-the-usccb/#comment-20548 Phillip Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:42:51 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=17368#comment-20548 Well the bottom line remains, the CCHD remains a major source of scandal today regardless of what Nixon said forty years ago. Well the bottom line remains, the CCHD remains a major source of scandal today regardless of what Nixon said forty years ago.

]]> By: Art Deco http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/02/06/fr-frank-pavone-defends-john-carr-of-the-usccb/#comment-20547 Art Deco Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:24:07 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=17368#comment-20547 Well, Teapot562, there are disputes between authorities over the severity of Clinton's offences per the positive law. The tainted Lawrence Walsh said Kenneth Starr's line of inquiry was outlandish and Richard Posner said that prosecutorial discretion would not have saved Clinton had he been an ordinary citizen and that the federal sentancing prescribed 30 to 37 months in prison for the sort of offences of which he was guilty. Please note also that Clinton was disbarred, that Susan McDougal spent 18 months in jail rather than testify at grand jury proceedings, and that James McDougal died before his testimony could be offered to a petty jury. Please note also that Clinton has retained throughout a degree of respect in certain circles that Nixon never re-acquired. Well, Teapot562, there are disputes between authorities over the severity of Clinton’s offences per the positive law. The tainted Lawrence Walsh said Kenneth Starr’s line of inquiry was outlandish and Richard Posner said that prosecutorial discretion would not have saved Clinton had he been an ordinary citizen and that the federal sentancing prescribed 30 to 37 months in prison for the sort of offences of which he was guilty. Please note also that Clinton was disbarred, that Susan McDougal spent 18 months in jail rather than testify at grand jury proceedings, and that James McDougal died before his testimony could be offered to a petty jury.

Please note also that Clinton has retained throughout a degree of respect in certain circles that Nixon never re-acquired.

]]>