Quebec priest turns to politics

I am pleased to see him gone from the pulpit, however I would like the Bishops to make it absolutely clear he does not have their blessing.

I would also have a difficult time being in a church where my pastor was working toward the breakup of my country. The church is indeed wise to refuse their clergy to act politically while serving in ministry.

Priests cannot enter the political life? Even as Catholic school trustees? I know a priest in our riding who has been doing that for 30+ years and he doesn’t strike me as a dissenting type. Now, I had a pastor out west who was in Ottawa as a politician for a number of years, but I could see that may have been dissension… what’s the # in Canon Law?

has the apostolic nuncio issued a press release?? I would love to send to others and to write a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail!!!

TO,

Canon 285.3, which reads:

Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.

I don’t think the school trustee thing would be a problem, because they are Catholic schools are therefore are regulated by another part of canon law (in partnership with civil law). But becoming an MP is definitely contrary to canon 285.3, as per certain precedents.

Will he welcomed back with open arms to resume public ministry when he leaves politics?? A temporary ban seems too easy and many priests who are on special assignment do little/no public ministry, so this seems not harsh enough..

Lifesite says he has agreed to not publicly espouse non-Catholic positions. Is this true? what ihis is track record in this area??/

——
I do appreciate the seculist comment you made Father…

Wow what a perfect making for a Hollywood film. While I agree with your assessment of Church policy and its application Father Tom, I cannot take you seriously with your secular conspiracy theory (“They are waiting for us to screw up”).
Most secularists are ambivalent to the point of being numb with the Church and its various stances on various issues. Any backlash you perceive is a result of the Church and/or it position being publicized in the media. In most cases, it is a member of the Church that does the instigation.
What value would be of a religious discourse in a democratic forum with religious groups (including Catholicism) which are not democratic nor are tolerant of “dissenters”?

Civic responsibilities should be completely separated from any religious influence. Those responsibilities should be fulfilled by those who swear to universal morals and ethics and who will serve the population at large regardless of ethnic or religious background. It is this reason why I have veered away from supposed “universal and all encompassing” fronts by religions like Christianity and Islam and have drawn closer to genuine encompassing movements such as humanism. Humanism places our strengths and weaknesses where they should be – with us. I believe humanist politicians would better serve the public because they believe in serving their primary focus – humanity.

Neal, Father Gravel may feel that Quebec is his country and if his constituents elect him then he will be obliged to follow his and their vision. But that may be another discussion for another time.

Your Secular Friend
Rob

Secular Humanism is as much a religion as any other…

secular humanists like Morgentaler allow babies 1 day before birth to be killed… http://www.humanists.ca/History.htm

and this is better than those who follow Natural Law?? ha!

Who better serves the public??

I found this interesting:

http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/10/does-fr-gravel-really-have-permission.html

Rob,

While there is a lot in your post I find interesting for discussion purposes, your wholesale backing of humanism had me remembering who collaborated with the nazis…from firsthand accounts it was those who embraced humanism (and like philosophies). Why? A few reasons, but mostly what I figure it’s that most religions have us responsible to a higher power which is more…demanding(?) than being “only” responsible to each other (something we screw up at a LOT).

Having God in the equation seems to give people something “more in their corner” no?

Eric
I would have to research what you said about Humanism and its followers collaborating with Nazism. That to me betrays what Humanism really is or what I understand it to be. Nazism clearly discriminated against several ethnic peoples such as the Jews, Slavs and Gypsies. Humanism embraces all living people regardless of their ethnic background.
Part of the weakness of having “God” in the equation seems to be man speaking on behalf of God. How many hundreds and hundreds of years of bloody battles just between Christianity and Islam alone resulted because “God” was in the equation? We have had so much a loss of life on this planet because of what we have projected on God.
Having God in “your corner” may give you some psychological advantage until the guy you are boxing also makes the sign of the cross. It is time to stop the “us” and “them” and treat everyone as equally human. The philosophy appeals to me because it is truly universal in its ideals. The moment one religion professes to be superior over an other is when the ugly clashes begin.

James,
Morgentaler and abortion are not defining features of humanism. I like a lot of the philosophy but that in no way translates into myself supporting abortion. The Catholic Church insisted that Galileo was wrong about the earth going around the sun. Does that mean you have to believe that now? No. I never said the movement was perfect but it aspires for humans to use reason – to use our brains and let rationality guide us. We have seen what two thousand years of defending faith against hypocrisy and heretics have got us. Why not give us a hundred years where we can use our logic and rational first in how we deal with each other?

Rob:

1) your history on Galileo is wrong

2) I suggest you read JPII’s Fides et Ratio

3) I suggest you read 50 Questions on the Natural Law: What It Is and Why We Need It (Paperback) by Charles E. Rice.. He also had a great EWTN series on NL..

anyone have any comments on my Canon Law link about this case??

Father

Can you explain the role (or non-role) of the Primate of Canada (Cardinal of QC) and the Apostolic Nuncio in things like this??

Is the primate role entirely ceremonial???

James

Maybe my history according to the Church is wrong. However according to Wikipedia, the Church did the following:

The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as “formally heretical”.
He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

Let’s see you dance around that one.

Cheers
Robert

James

I might be missing more information but the only thing mentioned by John Paul II’s Fides et Ratio about this topic is the following:

“[Galileo] declared explicitly that the two truths, of faith and of science, can never contradict each other, ‘Sacred Scripture and the natural world proceeding equally from the divine Word, the first as dictated by the Holy Spirit, the second as a very faithful executor of the commands of God’, as he wrote in his letter to Father Benedetto Castelli on 21 December 1613.”

I fail to see how I got my history wrong from this and you did not even mention why I should be reading the above piece. Galileo recanted his theory due to threatening pressures from the Church. If you know of a different history, I would be happy to hear it from you and not another quotation.

Cheers
Rob

My points 2 and 3 were independent of the Galileo comment..

Read Catholiceducation.org for a TRUE history on Galileo..

Also…

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0294.htm

What seems to be devolving here is a debate over the merits of one ideology over another without a mutual agreement on what each ideology purports to be about. This has led to a “My dad is better than your dad” argument. One might argue that the aristotelian tenets that are the foundational pilars of Natural Law are in no way conflicting with the classical origins of humanism; specifically Thales, who is credited with creating the maxim “Know thyself”, and Xenophanes, who refused to recognize the politheistic gods of his time and reserved the divine for the principle of unity in the universe (in essense the Holy Spirit).

Erasmus, one of the most prominent humanist scholars of the Renaissance, fought the good fight in his quest for truth, but never abandoned his faith. He remained a Roman Catholic throughout his lifetime, but at the same time he criticised what he considered the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church. He even turned down a Cardinalship because of his perceptions, but still dedicated his life to God.

All this to say that a debate must be founded on mutually accepted truths, otherwise no communication can occur.

Perhaps, you could quote a papal or magisterial document that infallibly declares geo-centrism is the truth…

Gord
I agree… Catholic Humanism based on Natural Law leads to human dignity, love, charity etc..

The religion of Secular Humanism leads to excessive individualism, narcissism and a culture of death and sex

I note that the Canadian Humanists have NEVER lobbied the government on issues like
childhood poverty, 3rd world debt.. theur ENTIRE lobbying effort is based on sex and death…

From http://www.humanists.ca/History.htm :

“We took a stand on the abortion issue, made representations to the Royal Commission on Reproductive Rights, the CRTC hearings on Religious Broadcasting, and the Senate Committee on Euthanasia. Although unsuccessful, many of our members signed a petition to have the reference to God removed from the preamble of the Canadian Constitution. “

James
Did you read your quoted source? Basically this source is arguing that Galileo was “antagonistic” and was out to challenge the norms that could not accept this radical change in thinking. The article at “http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html” goes on to pat the scriptures on the back for being heliocentric although no specific scripture is quoted here.

There is nothing in this article that refutes the basic facts:
Galileo had theory
Church disagreed with theory even if they were “pestered”
Church ruled Galileo’s theory heretical
Church reverses its position and accepts Galileo’s work posthumously

Those are the facts and saying that Galileo was antagonistic and beligerent and was “pestering” the Church, really has no bearing on what happened.

In fact the article raises questions that I have asked and still have not received any answers from anyone here – to what extent is the Bible literal and/or figurative?

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0033.html (a better article)

I would spend less time focussing on Galileo and more time looking at Catholic Humanism/Natural Law

Also look at the fruits of Atheism and the 100s of millions killed in the 20th century (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot etc)… and the fruits of Secular Humanism (abortion, euthanasia, etc etc)

James
Not all humanists are uniform in their beliefs. Lobbying does not mean that all humanists are completely in line in uniformity.

Here is what I like about humanism:
“They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.”

That thinking would hardly lead to “excessive individualism, narcissism and a culture of death and sex.” Maybe you can connect the dots to support your line of thinking here. Secular Humanism is a philosophy and not a religion. I subscribe to the philosophy but in no way am I linked or obligated to follow any representative or society that claims to be a secular humanist.
Cheers
Rob

what is your defn of “religion”?

“tolerance and cooperation.” – are these absolutes? does one tolerate evil?

Why do a majority of humanist secularists support abortion if they emphasize reason and scinetific inquiry??? Just look at a picture of a 30week old prebrn baby!!
http://www.justthefacts.org

The fruits of religious wars are much longer and just as ferocious. Stalin, Hitler and others had a severe psychological dysfunction or delusion and a wanton for power which had nothing to do with being religious or not. I really think you do not want to go down this road because there has been many more savage wars in the name of religion and I do not believe you can say the world is a better place for it.

James,

Your position on abortion has not been a consistent one in history. Take a look at the evolution of the RC position:

St. Augustine (AD 354-430) said, “There cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation”, and held that abortion required penance only for the sexual aspect of the sin.6 He and other early Christian theologians believed, as had Aristotle centuries before, that “animation”, or the coming alive of the fetus, occurred forty days after conception for a boy and eighty days after conception for a girl. The conclusion that early abortion is not homicide is contained in the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the church in 1140.6 As this collection was used as an instruction manual for priests until the new Code of Canon Law of 1917, its view of abortion has had great influence.6

At the beginning of the 13th century, Pope Innocent III wrote that “quickening” —the time when a woman first feels the fetus move within her— was the moment at which abortion became homicide; prior to quickening, abortion was a less serious sin. Pope Gregory XIV agreed, designating quickening as occurring after a period of 116 days (about 17 weeks). His declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication continued to be the abortion policy of the Catholic Church until 1869.

Cheers
Robert

Very intersting discussion. Thanks for taking the time and effort, and keeping your cool.

your history is wrong
http://www.linacre.org/embryo.html

Glad to see that “human reason” alone has made you pro-life though!!! We need all the help we can get!

I am pleased to see him gone from the pulpit, however I would like the Bishops to make it absolutely clear he does not have their blessing.

We have bishops…plural?

One can presume the worst, that he is somehow actively blackmailing the diocese (why else would he have been allowed to do what he is doing) and that it will only get worse if he is in public office. Can you imagine his pushing for laws that force the Church to change to suit his liking? Can you imagine the Church being unable to discipline said priest once he starts working for the state because any such action would be considering interfering with state affairs?

Hi Norm
Thanks for the note and yes we do try and keep our cool here. I have purposely avoided the topic that James keeps wanting to bring up – abortion. It is a very complex issue which needs more reflection than most people can give. I certainly for one understand the Christian view of abortion. It is a thorny issue which will not be resolved anytime soon but it certainly has polarized people in opposite camps.
I do understand the Christian frustration of having a secular society rule against it on issues like abortion and gay marriages and religion being taken out of the schools.
As for my personal stance on abortion – I have felt that those who make that personal choice are hurting themselves. As Forest Gump would say, “That’s all I have to say about that.”

Cheers
Robert

Hey Rob,

Sorry for the delay; been hectic.

Check out books/interviews with Elie Wiesel and Viktor Frankl (There are a couple of really good ones from the Man Alive series). They describe firsthand the corruption process that took place.

Good luck with the rest.

Eric

I do not hold a “Christian” view of abortion.. I hold a reasoned, scientific, Natural Law view which opposes abortion….

others of the religion of Secular Humanism have used dogmatism and emotionalism to support abortion…

Can we get back to the Gravel issue directly..

what do people think of

http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/10/does-fr-gravel-really-have-permission.html

what do people think of the diocese’s press release on the matter?

Fr. De Souza’s article from Saturday’s National Post on this issue is well worth reading.

“Selling a Calling for a Mess of Pottage”
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0088.htm

“How this came to be reported as “permission” is a matter for Fr. Gravel to explain. To the contrary, the consequence of his decision is that he has forfeited his priestly ministry. A revision of the Biblical phrase about Esau’s foolishness comes to mind: selling one’s vocation for a mess of pottage.”

great article by Fr deSouza

but I can’t help to think that TEMPORARY suspension of his priestly ministry seems rather lame to me..

I support your war on separatism.

I do not see why the Church would not get rid of him, if he is violating Church law that he has sworn to uphold. I could see the headlines now – “Canned by Canon Law”

Cheers
Robert

Robert

?????????

Do not understand

James

If he is violating Canon Law by running for political office, then the Church should get rid of him..or ex-communicate him or whatever it is they need to do. If the directives and rules are clear, I do not see why the Church should have to be tolerant.
It is clear you do not share my penchant for word play… dommage.

Cheers
Robert

thx

gotta love those nice secular humanists! So reasoned, so reasonable…

http://relapsedcatholic.blogspot.com/2006/11/when-atheists-attack-crush-creche.html

James
You can get rid of those nasty secular humanists. Get a bucket of holy water and baptize them when they are unsuspecting. They will start to melt just like the wicked witch in the Wizard Of Oz. Fight the irrational with irrationality. You need to wipe them all out because every one of those nasty..I mean, nice secular humanist can be put into a box of the same beliefs.
Onward Christian Soldier!!!

Cheers
Robert

study Natural Law.. it is totally rational!!

May I suggest
“50 Questions on the Natural Law: What It Is and Why We Need It”

James,

I will read the articles you have suggested on natural law. If you have a rational and open mind, I suggest you read Earl Doherty’s “The Jesus Puzzle”. I recommend this piece of work for all – even Christian apologetics. The link is – http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

Now before you turn your nose up at this work. Take the time to read and understand the work. Apologetics need to read it thoroughly if they want to develop a coherent rebuttal. You may find that it is distasteful to your beliefs but we are talking about rationalism and reason here.

In order to refute a position, you have to completely understand the subject at hand? And so the challenge has been thrown.

Cheers
Robert

I think his bishop should have suspended him long ago. He has caused a lot of problems and his rhetoric endangers souls.

Regardless of how crappy a priest this man is, he is still a priest (called by God), active or not. It is clear that this man is in need of God’s grace and healing power.

He is a brother in need. Therefore, I invite ya’ll to think of him (and all priests, who struggle to live their calling properly) in your prayers.