9 Comments so far

1. Mrs. Zummo on May 29, 2008 12:37 pm

   That’s pretty funny. I do agree with him that Hilary felt entitled to the nomination, but I don’t think just being white was the reason. This view of white people just cracks me up. Apparently we are all descendants of slave owners, and we all have trust funds and companies our daddies are going to give us. Anyone out there fit that description? The very few people I’ve met in my life who were descended from slave owners were not especially wealthy. Any wealth they had wasn’t inherited. But perhaps I’m introducing logic where it doesn’t belong.

2. CrankyCon on May 29, 2008 12:40 pm

   And of course, only white people own 401 (k)s.

3. Jay Anderson on May 29, 2008 1:36 pm

   This is the same priest who called for the “snuffing out” of gun shop owners.

4. Victor Morton on May 29, 2008 4:37 pm

   Is it a violation of canon law for a Catholic priest to speak at a Protestant church’s pulpit?

5. CrankyCon on May 29, 2008 5:37 pm

   Is it a violation of canon law for a Catholic priest to speak at a Protestant church’s pulpit?

   Unfortunately Ed Peters is not a reader of this blog (at least not that I am aware of), so I don’t think we can get an official answer on this one, but I would assume not. That’s a good question to look into, though.

6. Victor Morton on May 29, 2008 6:00 pm

   Upon reflection, I could see it going either way.

   To start with, priests can obviously speak at ecumenical meetings and events. But while the Church is fairly lax on attending Protestant services, it forbids intercommunion fairly strictly even for lay people (and for a Protestant service, the issue isn’t really about “protecting the Eucharist,” since it doesn’t exist, but projecting a false unity).

   So to highlight the two most relevant things, would speaking (1) from a pulpit in a (2) non-liturgical church’s service constitute an ordinary ecumenical act (in which case, it’s probably OK) or a form of intercommunion (in which, it almost certainly isn’t).

7. CrankyCon on May 29, 2008 6:36 pm

   Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t priests allowed to co-officiate (for lack of a better term) at weddings involving a Catholic and a Protestant that is celebrated in a Protestant Church – assuming a dispensation has been granted? Now, I know of cases where this has happened, but it may not really have been allowed. But if that’s allowable, then I would guess speaking at the pulpit would also be permitted.

   But I really don’t know.

8. Donald R. McClarey on May 29, 2008 7:56 pm

   Father Flakey has been a law unto himself in Chicago for years. That this racist buffoon is still a priest in good standing with the Archdiocese is a tribute to how ineffectual Caridnal George has been.

9. G-Veg on May 30, 2008 4:43 am

   Over the last few years, I have read off-and-on pieces about the need for and justice of payments to the descendants of slave-owners. In particular, the handful of lawsuits against companies descending from insurers of plantations and slave transport have garnered a great deal of attention.

   I have a hard time taking any of it too seriously since the practical problems alone make any settlement virtually impossible. I have to think that this issue will die on its own.