You remember Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist. Well, she was scheduled to appear April 9 at St. John the Evangelist Church hall in Scranton to speak with Pax Christi of Northeastern Pennsylvania. That is, until the Diocese of Scranton got wind of it. Then…not so much.
Never one to shy away from publicity, Sheehan, a former Catholic, now has plenty to say about the Church because of it. And as you can imagine, she’s not being so nice. According to published reports she’s calling the Church not truly pro-life and hypocritical.
The Diocese of Scranton issued this statement:
The March 11 issue of The Catholic Light contained a notice about an upcoming appearance by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, who was scheduled to speak at St. John Hall in Scranton on April 9.
This notice was published in error. Neither Cardinal Justin Rigali, Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Scranton, nor Bishop-elect Joseph C. Bambera had authorized the use of a Diocesan or parish facility to host this speaker. Although Mrs. Sheehan is well known for her anti-war stance against the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq , she also supports positions that are contrary to Church teaching regarding life and marriage issues.
Therefore, her appearance at St. John Hall has been cancelled and she will not be allowed to speak at any other Diocesan or parish facility.
And now it’s like the diocese lit the Sheehan fuse because now she’s attacking the Church calling it not really pro-life, hypocritical and not caring about people who have already been born.
The Standard Speaker reports:
She said this is the first time a diocese has banned her from speaking at a Catholic venue.
She has received awards from a Catholic organization because of her anti-war views and spoke inside a Catholic church in Columbus, Ohio, and at a Catholic church hall in Cleveland, Ohio, she said.
“Those bishops didn’t make a big deal about it,” she said.
Sheehan, a former Catholic parish youth minister, said she left the church years ago because of its willingness to cover up sexual abuse by priests.
“Every time the church does something like this, it enrages me because first of all I feel I’ve dedicated my life to peace,” she said. “I don’t go to my events and say, ‘I’m for a woman’s right to choose’ or ‘I’m for marriage equality.’ That’s not what I speak about. I speak about ending these unjust wars that killed my son.”
The church has failed to “take a lead role in demanding the U.S. end its military misadventures around the world,” which would be a pro-life position, she said.
“Whenever they do something like this, they just call more attention to the hypocrisy of their positions,” she said. “To me, it’s more like they want to protect the unborn than they want to protect the people who are already born.”
So let me get this straight. She’s telling a newspaper that she’s for a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage to explain that she never talks about a woman’s right to choose and her support of gay marriage. That make sense to anyone?
I’m sure we’ll hear more about this from Ms. Sheehan. I’m sure that if she thinks there’s publicity to be had she’ll show up at Cardinal Rigali’s office like she did near Dick Cheney’s house a few months ago.
March 14, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Silence is golden. Thank you Bishop.
March 14, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Cindy Sheehan is a voice that should never be heard in catholic churches or Catholic cirlces. She is a poor lost soul who needs our prayers
March 15, 2010 at 1:09 am
Does anyone find it strange that Sheehan was given the pulpit to exposit her POLITICAL views? How often are we told that the Church is in danger of losing their tax-exempt status if they engage in politics? I guess if you are reflexively leftist, the IRS will forgive you.
March 15, 2010 at 2:21 am
Ms. Sheehan has been through a heart wrenching ordeal and needs our prayers, compassion and love.
Let the truth be spoken humbly in our hearts and pervade over our land. Dear Jesus, in Your Mercy, heal us all where we need it, for the good of our souls and always for Your Glory. Amen.
God bless us, everyone.
March 15, 2010 at 2:45 am
Anonymous:
Please understand what is meant by piety. Piety is a false sense of piousness. Piety and piousness are not the same thing. One can do a pious act, such as pray the rosary, without engaging in piety. The example I gave with the Pharisee and the tax collector shows the Pharisee practicing piety: a shallow faith, while holding all the "outward" signs. But the tax collector, showed true piousness: an act of selflessness through his prayer. He was truly humble.
Using your example of EWTN, we could probably say that piety abounds there and piousness is lacking.
March 15, 2010 at 2:57 am
Cindy can't speak because she is pro-abortion. So how does Notre Dame get off?
March 15, 2010 at 3:34 am
Kim – piety is one of the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit, which strengthens us in our duty to God. It is no way a false sense of piousness. False piety is the example of the Pharisee in Christ's parable.
The opposite of piety would be irreverence.
March 15, 2010 at 4:04 am
Ms Sheehan does NOT accept the Magesterial teachings of the Holy Mother Church.
She is therefore a non- Catholic with absolutely no right to speak with her forked tongue in any Catholic Church or property.
She preaches peace on the one hand and supports; "War In The Womb" on the other.
She also subscribes to the support of anti-life"Sodogomous" unions.
Catholic indeed????
Ms Sheehan needs to remember that"A House Divided against It's Self Cannot Stand"
She is in dire need of prayer.
March 15, 2010 at 9:52 am
Would Sheehan allow someone with whom she disagrees to speak in her home? No, of course not! She is a typical former Catholic become anti-Catholic. They are the most viral and bigoted against the Church, because they want a Church in their likeness.
March 15, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Larry D:
I do understand that piety is one of the gifts of the HS. However, I am making a distinction between true piety (piousness) and false piety (piety). I thought that was clear.
March 15, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Does anyone see a healing of the church in the near future? Reading all of the above is depressing. With the Church experiencing a cleansing of sorts and world the way it is, I'm thinking we are possibly witnessing end times. There is so much negativity, how do we get back to a place of truly living Church teaching and peace?
March 15, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Anonymous:
"how do we get back to a place of truly living Church teaching and peace?"
The truth is, we've never been there to begin with. Throughout Her history, the Church has always been rife with scandal, even as far back as the Council of Jerusalem. We are constantly undergoing a cleansing because we are constantly plagued by scandal. You would think by now that we would no longer be surprised by scandal,but alas, that's not true. We always seem to think that whatever the current scandal is, it is the worst in Church history, and surely the Church is falling apart? Surely there was a time when we were peaceful? But closer look at history does not bear this rose-colored view out. We have always been plagued by scandal and we always will be until the end of time.
March 15, 2010 at 3:40 pm
The problem is not that there is scandal in the Church. It's pretending that scandal isn't really scandal. Same-sex marriage and abortion are objectively wrong, no matter who tells you that. They are not the only wrongs out there, but they are the ones with a significant constituency trying to tell us they are not wrong. One can be honestly in error about whether x war is just or not. There is no such wiggle-room on abortion and ssm. People can dive down the ad hominem escape hatch if they want, but it doesn't change the truth.
March 15, 2010 at 3:45 pm
When we get to the point of not being surprised by scandal, that will be a dark day indeed, for then the actions/behavior will no longer BE scandalous, but accepted. I agree that there never was, and never will be on earth, a perfect time in the Church, but we must always remain vigilant against the scandals and heresies that do harm to the faith.
March 15, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Lori:
I disagree. We should never be surprised by scandal. Christ was not surprised by scandal. However, don't confuse not being surprised by it with accepting it. The two are not the same. Christ said to be as wise as serpents. Because we are still surprised by human behavior, that means we still have a long way to go with being wise.
March 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm
"The problem is not that there is scandal in the Church. It's pretending that scandal isn't really scandal. "
Exactly, romish graffiti. And I think that's why amiguity and apathy are so wrong.
March 15, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Kim – I have to protest mildly. We understood the distinction you made between true and false piety, but you left us puzzled by your terms:
I am making a distinction between true piety (piousness) and false piety (piety).
This strongly implies that you think ALL piety is false. That's why Larry D pointed out that piety is from God. I think it's more accurate to have drawn the distinction between true piety (piety) and false piety (smugness, pride).
No big deal, since we know now what you mean… but not every visitor might!
March 15, 2010 at 5:39 pm
nightfly:
I think the problem is in our English language. We have too many words with several meanings. I do like to make the distinction between false piety and true piety with different words. For me, it's like the difference between morality (good) and moralism (bad)
March 15, 2010 at 8:50 pm
I do understand that piety is one of the gifts of the HS. However, I am making a distinction between true piety (piousness) and false piety (piety). I thought that was clear.
It's not clear at all. That's like saying true charity is charitableness while false charity is charity. You can't define something by the same word – that's why it was unclear to me what you were trying to say. The Pharisee wasn't displaying piety, he was displaying pride.
Nightfly had it right.
And that's all I'm going to say on this to avoid the risk of hijacking the thread.
March 16, 2010 at 12:06 am
Regardless, Larry, I thought my meaning was clear the first time I said because I gave the example of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Even if my use of the word threw you a little, the example should have gotten you back on track.