Friday, August 11, 2006

News flash: Bishop actually meets with faithful

Wow. After a mere three years, the archbishop of Boston has finally met with members of Voice of the Faithful, the reform group organized after the sex abuse scandal broke in Boston. Truly a model of responsiveness to the needs of God's people.

Neither VOTF nor O'Malley would comment on the content of the meeting nor if they would meet again. A spokesperson for O'Malley said that the archbishop had not relaxed the ban that had prevented VOTF members from meeting in their own parishes. The ban against VOTF has been in place since now-resigned-in-utter-disgrace Bernard Law imposed it in 2002.

People can rant all they want about the church not being a democracy--a claim I think is a bit broad anyway--but for a bishop to refuse for three years to meet an organized group of baptized Catholics with legitimate grievances is an absolute disgrace and a disservice to the people of God.

Furthermore, that the contents of this meeting should remain private is equally problematic. The issues at stake--transparency, accountability, stewardship of the resources of God's people--are public matters. This is not some private dispute between the archbishop as a person and a couple of influential Catholics; this is a public issue about the relationship between the local church and its leader. While the blame for the time it took to get this meeting lies with the archbishop, the fact that VOTF is willing to play along in the quiet game is disheartening. That's not going to get them the kind reform they want.


At 11:48 AM, Blogger Mohan Shrestha said...

Nice your site and power also and good design.

bingo online -
play bingo online
baccarat online
casino baccarat

internet casinos -
online casinos


bingo online

online bingo

internet bingo

bingo sites

play bingo

bingo casinos

play bingo online

bingo casino
play online bingo

bingo websites

bingo web sites


At 8:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You cannot compare gambling with the legalization of gay marriage.
Gay marriage is a black/white issue, gambling is not. In order to have a "marriage" you need to have a complimentary conjugal relationship. A gay "marriage" would be little more than a partnership with distoriented sexual activity going on, it wouldn't be a "marriage" at all. If Bert can marry Ernie, then why can't I marry my dog? Why can't Harry, Sally, AND Susie marry? Marriage is more than a partnership, it is a sacrament, a union invented by God himself. We couln't change the definition if we wanted to. Now, gambling, is not an absolute moral evil, it can be a legitamate source of entertainment if one exercises caution and prudence. Now of course, for some people gambling does lead to sin, but a money wheel at a carnival or parish Bingo is certainly not sinful, again as long as one exercises prudence. To put it bluntly, it is morally legitamate to do a little gambling, but is never legitamate to "do a little homosexual activity."


Post a Comment

<< Home