"We have created the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in response to the call of Pope John Paul the Great for a "New Evangelization, new in order, methods and expression." We gather from across the United States of America for worship and fellowship. We gather to thank Our Lord for his abundant blessings upon this Land. We reaffirm our faith in Him and renew our dedication to this great Republic. We commit ourselves to providing for our brothers and sisters who are the most vulnerable in society, and we commit our country to the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary."Look at the highlighted sentence. Doesn't that mix religion and nationalism? Doesn't Catholic mean universal, going beyond the confines of a particular country? And isn't there something a little discomforting about equating faith in God and "this great Republic" in the same sentence?
Friday, April 13, 2007
What is the "National Catholic Prayer Breakfast" Anyway?
Its mission statement:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Good grief, MM, get with the program! Obviously, you're not a "GOOD CATHOLIC" or you would know how to properly translate these things.
. . .his abundant blessings upon
this Land = The Administration of George W. Bush.
. . .renew our dedication to this great Republic = Our dedication to the great Republican Party.
Obviously God does love America more than other countries. He has made us the only Super Power and Richest Country on Earth. He has further blessed us with the enormously successful presidency of George W. Bush, and dedicated Christian allies like Richard Dobson/Bill Donohue/Geo Weigel, and on and on --not to mention a vast array of rightwing think tanks---all doing the Lord's work. Is it any wonder we are God's special favorites?
"We gather to thank Our Lord for his abundant blessings upon this Land. We reaffirm our faith in Him and renew our dedication to this great Republic."
Yes, obviously, we are not supposed to thank God for His blessings, affirm our faith in Him, or be dedicated to our Republic in any way.
Yeah, that's nationalism run amok. They'll be goose stepping any day now.
Let's take a peek at the attendance roster . . .
At Table #1 we find those paragons of Catholic virtue, George Weigel, RJ Neuhaus, Michael Novak & Bill O'Reilly. Seated at Table #2 is Deal Hudson, Tom Monahan, Raymond Arroyo & Sean Hannity. At Table #3 we have Ollie North, Pat Buchanan, Rick Santorum & Randall Terry. Such a sparkling array of Repub...ooops I mean Catholic luminaries!
*Archbishop McCarrick, although now retired, tried to attend but was turned away at the door on the advice of George Weigel who called him a bad Catholic.
I'm not the least bit fond of 3/4 of the people you mentioned, but you still have to wonder why there weren't any, according to your account at least, democrats in attendance. (Of course there actually were, since it is a bipartisan event hosted by congress. I think Emanuel Cleaver, II, (D. Missouri) and Jo Ann Davis (R. Virginia) were the co-chairs for the 2007 event.
Got a citation for your claim about the good Cardinal? If not, Minion should know her comments boxes are being used to calumniate a fellow Catholic, even if it is one neither of us are fond of.
My bad, I've never heard of a "National CATHOLIC Prayer Breakfast" I assumed you meant the run of the mill one.
I withdraw all but the final paragraph of my last comment.
I withdraw all but the final paragraph of my last comment.
That's mighty big of you.
Oh my, calumniate a fellow Catholic!!! Heavens!!! And George Weigel, the Dear Man, of all people! What is this world coming to?!?!?
Exerpted from NCR:
". . .papal biographer George Weigel used his column to attack the retired archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
In a series of retirement-eve interviews, McCarrick stressed his "moderate" and "civil" approach to dealing with politicians and others who disagree with church teaching.
Weigel, a longtime behind-the-scenes McCarrick nemesis, pounced. "It's not easy to know what Cardinal McCarrick means by his oft-repeated admonition to moderation," wrote the neoconservative columnist. He proceeded to equate McCarrick's beliefs with those of a Jakarta nun, a Sri Lankan Jesuit, and a Benedictine college president who have expressed varying degrees of dissent with church teaching and doctrine.
In an unusual move, McCarrick responded to the Weigel column. "The column incorrectly equates my repeated calls for civility in public life and in the church with a lack of uncompromising commitment to the doctrine of our faith," he wrote. "Nothing could be further from the truth, as anyone who has taken the time to read my many talks and columns would know."
McCarrick continued, "Not only that, the column goes on to describe the positions of three Catholics from other nations--people I don't know--as if their erroneous views were my own. That is, at the minimum, deceptive journalism, if not worse. It is an old trick of debaters to create a straw man and then demolish it, giving the false impression that one is thereby proving a point."
So you have no evidence for your claim then?
Post a Comment