Daily Archives: March 1, 2012
Astonishingly, the Catholic News Service seems to not allow one to tweet their articles, and I wonder whether their offices are lit with candles. But perhaps it’s my mistake.
Be it as it may, they report here the chairman of the US Bishop’s Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty went again in front of the Congress, and did not mince words. In an electoral year, this might not have pleased all the presents.
Bishop Lori said the mandate “has suddenly turned the world upside down” by making commonly understood words mean something entirely different.
“Listening to the public discourse about the mandate, it is easy to get the impression that the Catholic bishops were somehow on the cusp of prohibiting the use of contraceptives nationwide,” he said. “Only in our new world-turned-upside-down does freedom require the denial of freedom; only in the post-mandate world is access to contraceptives somehow prohibited unless government begins forcing religious people and groups to fund and facilitate it.”
He questioned why the Obama administration “will brook no dissent” on including contraceptives, sterilization and some abortion-causing drugs in health plans, while remaining “essentially indifferent” regarding other essential health benefits such as prescription drugs and hospitalization coverage, leaving those decisions to the states.
Other representatives of religious organisations have intervened, and it is interesting to notice that opposition to the mandate is not exclusive to Catholics, nor even to Christians.
I still can’t imagine this was a smart move for the Obama administration. This will hurt them badly unless the US bishops start to relent, and frankly at this point I can’t see how they could, or why they should.
Methinks, Obama’s summer will be rather chilly.
Reblog of the day
The question of the detachment from venial sin as a necessary condition to obtain a plenary indulgence has been often discussed. One generally reads a bit of everything, from the hardliners thinking that only the saintliest could, on rare occasion, gain a plenary indulgence to the softies maintaining that the simple agreement that venial sins are to be avoided would suffice.
In my eyes, we must avoid falling into both the harshness of extreme severity and the “feel good-ism” so typical of our time. The best thing to do is, I think, to find inspiration in the life of the Saints.
St. Philip Neri once received from God the intelligence that the plenary indulgence the Pope had granted for that day – and about which he had just finished to preach to a full church – would be obtained only by himself and another person among the faithful present. If…
View original post 283 more words
Read on Rorate Caeli about this beautiful Lenten indulgence.
I point out that:1) the “usual conditions” apply: communion, confession. It is generally believed (unless I am mistaken) that a leeway of a reasonable number of days for the confession is acceptable. Therefore, you might go to Mass tomorrow and to confession on Saturday or, if you can’t make it, the following one. During Lent you will notice the possibility of confession might be increased in many churches. 2) I am sceptical about this “easy plenary indulgence” thing, which I suspect is rather a fruit of modern times. I always remember what St Philip Neri had to say on the matter, because I really can’t see myself doing anything wrong if I do. I will reblog the relevant post. I suggest everyone who can gives it a try. Even if we do not get th eplenary indulgence, the day we die these little efforts might do all the difference. Mundabor