Sermon on Video
The 2016 Presidential Election: Voting from a Catholic Perspective
Watch this sermon. What makes it so important? What is his argument? Tell me what rhetorical strategies Fr. John Lankeit uses to make his argument. What does Fr. Lankeit NOT SAY that makes the sermon even more relevant? Who is the author of this sermon? And how does that play into it's rhetorical appeal? And finally, do you think the pulpit was the appropriate place to deliver this message? Why or why not? and why might this be considered controversial? (Hint: We are assuming that abortion is a non-negotiable. As Catholics and as Christians, we oppose abortion, so the controversy is not the abortion issue. It is something else.)
To me, this sermon is so important because often times, it is completely unheard of to speak of politics and religion at the same time. It brings up too much controversy for people, so it is always avoided. The argument in this sermon does not have to deal with the basis of abortion, but rather the lack of caring for abortion in our society. It argues about the excuses that people give for abortion, and how some of their choices and words are completely opposite of their opinions on abortion. This sermon argues that before you vote, you need to know all of the facts about who you are voting for and how it plays into your religion. In this sermon, there are multiple rhetorical strategies that are used. In the beginning of the sermon, Fr. John Lankeit uses rhetorical questions that have obvious answers to them. His use of rhetorical questions gets the audience to think a certain way, but then, later in the talk, he uses their previous thinking and twists it in a way that the audience did not expect. Also in this sermon, the priest uses repetition. He repeatedly states, in different words, that "in abortion an innocent person is always put to death, and never by mistake. It’s always chosen...always intended." he continuously talks about how although some controversial things in the government are by accident, abortion is not. It is fully willed and intended. Until the very end, Fr. Lankeit does not say that this message is one from their bishop. This plays into the effect of the speech because it does not give the audience the feel that they are being spoken to from one of higher authority. When a simple person who is closer to us gives us advice or tells us something, we are more likely to listen to them and actually understand what they say. When a person of higher authority addresses and issue such as this, people often believe that they are just trying to persuade them or try to get them to vote a certain way to agree with them. The fact that they did not know the author of this sermon until the very end of it effects how the audience thinks of the words that were said, and it will allow them to form their own personal opinions. Lastly, I think the pulpit was not a bad place to deliver this sermon, yet it was not necessarily the best place either. This sermon was one that people needed to hear, but the chances that the people who actually needed to hear it were actually in the pulpit is slim. Most of the people there probably already knew what they needed to know about the presidential debate and religion. However, this sermon probably helped to solidify the opinions of the people in the pulpit, which is why it was not a bad place to deliver the sermon.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed how you said that people give excuses for abortion and their choices oppose what they say their views are because it is so true. I did not notice that he used repetition until I read your blog, which shows that he was successful in telling me the same thing over and over without me noticing. I agree that the pulpit was a good place, but not the best to deliver the message. I like how you basically said he was preaching to the choir, but it helped to assure them with their vote.
DeleteI like how you added in the lack of care that our society has for abortion, and how the topic of politicis often avoided in a religious setting. I can also agree with you that the sermon helped solidify many opinions. It really clarified!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis sermon by Father John Lankeit is extremely important because it provides a strong Catholic assentive to the topic of the upcoming presidential election. The priests presents his argument on the topic of abortion related to the support of the practice by a certain party and a certain presidential candidate. The priest never directly says anywhere in his entire sermon which candidate to vote for. He only hints that one particular candidate supports abortion and this candidate should never be voted for by a Catholic person. This quality of withholding the blunt truth is a rhetorical strategy called aphorism. He also uses questions that remain unanswered until the end of his sermon to add to the overall effect of the speech. Father Lankeit then, only at the very end of his speech, tells the congregation that this sermon was in the words of the bishop of the diocese. This adds to the rhetorical appeal because it then establishes a strong appeal to ethos with the people because the bishop holds a position of power. Overall his speech was executed well, but was it proper to perform this sermon at the pulpit? I believe it was in some ways and not in others. Priests have a duty to preach the word of God ad keep us all living healthy Catholic lives. I believe the speech on the abortion end was very proper, but priests should avoid speaking of politics. This can also be considered very controversial in many means with regards to the separation of church and state present in the United States of America. It may also be controversial due to the fact that catholics believe abortion is wrong, therefore we must also believe that capital punishment is wrong because they both present the same means; execution of human life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you by saying that the pre-should not be speaking about politics because it can be considered very controversial with the separation Church and State. I also like how you said that the sermon holds strong appeal to ethos because of the power that the bishop holds over the church and the priest.
DeleteI found the rhetorical strategy of aphorism that you had mentioned to be very effective in this speech. I agree that it has an effect of the overall speech and that it grabbed the attention of the audience as well.
DeleteFr. Lankeit spoke of the many issues concerning the presidential election from a Catholic standpoint. This was incredibly important because many people did not know the reality of who they might vote for this year. He did not sugarcoat anything when it came to what could happen if you knowingly voted for someone who, in this case, supported abortion. He said that our souls would be in "grave danger" if we knowing voted for someone who supported intrinsic evil. He argues that there is a president who supports the killing of innocent people, and therefore should not be voted for. He used many rhetorical questions in his sermon to further emphasize his point that people should not vote for a candidate who was willing to kill people who were already born, so why is the life of an unborn child any different? In the same way he uses questions to show people that they might not know a lot about the candidates views. He also never uses the candidates' names, which adds greatly to his message. This forces people who do not know who he is talking about to do more research, or if they do know who he is alluding to, they might have to rethink their vote. At the end of his sermon, he tells the congregation that he did not write the homily, but rather it came from the bishop of their diocese. This added ethos to he speech because it was not coming from their priest, but from someone with higher power. I think that, for he most part, the sermon would be appropriate to give in any Catholic environment. It used facts and did not force a person to vote a certain way, it only told what would happen if a Catholic willing voted from a non-Catholic view. He was also calm and he delivered the message well although he did not actually write it. Even though it was well thought out, and covered many issues, the one part of the speech that I disagree with is the way he implies that we should pick the lesser of two evils. While I know that we, as Catholics, need to vote, we also are told in the Bible that we need to "abstain from every form of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22). How can we support either president if they both have things that go against the Church and her teachings?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you by saying that the priest use many rhetorical questions in his sermon to further emphasize his point that people should not vote for a candidate who is willing to kill people who were already born. I think that statement is very important because we as Catholics should know not to vote for a candidate who is for abortion. I also liked your Bible passage that you chose to use from the Thessalonians, I think you thought that out well!
DeleteI enjoyed your explanation about how he used his rhetorical strategies to allude to a specific candidate. I also like how you explained that if one did not know which candidate he was referring to they would be inclined to research both to see which one he was speaking of. I agree that this would incline this interest. I also like how you associated ethos with the bishop I used the same connection in my blog.
DeleteI think that Father John Lankeit does a great job in this sermon because it he speaks very aggressively about the presidential election that is coming up from a Catholics point of view. I believe that what he did during his sermon was very important. He didn't beat around the bush with anything that he had to say, he just came right out and said it and I think that is why this particular sermon was so straight forward with the clergy. He doesn't come out with any certain candidate to vote for, the other major thing that he says is which candidate supports abortion and which candidate is against it. One major rhetorical strategy that Father John Lankeit uses is ethos. He ends his sermon by saying that everything that he just said was straight from the words of the bishop. I think that it was a good thing for Father to say that his sermon was from the words of the bishop because of how much power the bishop hold. If Father Lankeit would of just left the part out about the sermon being straight from the bishop, I think it would of made the people listening think a little more. I also feel that this was very very important because the bishop is the one that hold all of the power over the priest. Do I feel that this was appropriate to speak this sermon at the pulpit? I think that some of the things that Father Lankeit said were appropriate, but not all of them. I believe that the part on abortion was very important considering the fact that we as Catholics are suppose to believe that abortion is wrong and unjustly, but I also feel like that they could of avoided speaking about politics, because church just really isn't the place for that I feel. By speaking this from the pulpit, I think I gave a more stern vibe in the air rather than giving the sermon down in front of the clergy interacting with the people.
ReplyDeleteI agree that he did not beat around the bush at all. He was very straightforward. I also agree that the way he presented it was in an aggressive way, but I think he did that because he wanted the people to listen because the election is such a big deal. He was very stern as well and I think you did a good job pointing that out. Maybe he should have gone down and talked with the people in a more relaxed way, like Fr. Eric so that they felt less like they were being lectured.
DeleteHis sermon isnt about politics at all, it is about catholic beliefs and Christianity. You did a very good job at explaining that. It was beneficial to him to state that his words were from the bishop because it gave him an ally in his beliefs, so I agree with you on that.
DeleteAfter watching this sermon it was brought to me that the pastor took a courageous move while dealing with the controversial subjects. Most pastors avoid the topics that cause a large uproar, but this pastor took the approach and laid down his bold argument. I think this was important considering he was not just an ordinary guy talking. He was a man who devoted his entire life toward Christ. He defended the unborn as well as all rights for any human being. Fr. John Lankeit proposed several rhetorical questions throughout his argument which helped open up some thought toward the listener. His questions would bring in major points dealing with our presidential candidates. Fr. John took this subject into the view of a Catholic perspective as he ruled out the details or ideas that the candidates had intentions of and clarified a religious look into it. After proposing these questions Fr. never stated a solid final answer. He left the listeners with a questionable mind and allowed them to fill in the blanks. In the speech the pastor revealed that the author was actually the bishop of the diocese. I think that this really brought out ethos as it leads into our Catholic moral and duties. I do believe that this was an appropriate place deliver the message, but if the approach of the speech had been different I think there may have been some major conflict. I also think that having this talk be done within a church setting definitely brought out some opinions as it is believed to some people that religion should not play a part in these actions.
ReplyDeleteCourageous is a very accurate word to show what he did. He was right when he said that abortion has a meaning in today's society that means leading to an argument instead of the killing of an innocent person. More people should be willing to speak out about it just as he did.
DeleteI agree that this was an appropriate place to deliver the message because of its context. I enjoy that fact the you explain that the people were left with a questionable mind because that is truly where their own opinion must come into play.
DeleteThroughout Fr. Lankeits homily he speaks of many different issues that deal with justice, morality, and hypocrisy, all of these however realate back to his single argument against abortion. Even though this is a very sensitive subject to talk about in today's society, it is important as a catholic to be well educated on the subject. During his sermon, the priest uses other common examples of killing to show how abortion is never okay or acceptable. His other examples provide imagery to help you picture the killing that takes part during abortion in another way. He also uses emotion by asking the congregation if they would be comfortable voting for someone who would make it legal to kill. His sermon is so effective because he never gives a choice to whether abortion is bad or not. He tells that it is a sin and what our duty as a catholic is. He never says that people have a choice and that it's up to the mother. He also never brings up the subject of rape and that is because it is a fully different argument. The sermon he gives is from his bishop and I think that it helped him a lot to mention that because now all of the people know that he is not the only one with these beliefs. It also helps a lot that he explains that it his his duty to lead his people away from sin and if not then it is a sin of his own. I do think that he could have found a more appropriate location to discuss this topic. He could have announced after mass that he was going to have a speech on abortion and a different time even though less people may have shown up. Many people have different opinions about abortion but he gives the catholic standards and beliefs very clearly so that all of the listeners know exactly what sins are present during abortion.
ReplyDeleteI like the connection to justice, morality, and hypocrisy. It fits the topic of abortion and politics. I also liked how you mentioned the imagery the priest used to help prove his point. I also think that the point of not having a choice is a controversial topic due to how many people disagree with not having a choice in abortion. You placed this well.
DeleteI like how you recognized imagery in his sermon, I didn't see that before. I also like the things you recognized that he didn't say.
DeleteWhat makes this argument so important, is the fact that there are lives depending on how the people vote in the upcoming election and that many people do not understand how to comprehend the facts before voting. This argument is given in the church where quite frankly many issues can be avoided because politics and religion together can be extremely uncomfortable during a sermon, but it is the duty of the priest which makes this so important. This priest is delivering the message and arguing that one must compile all facts and information in order to vote in good conscience. In a more bold statement, he is arguing that if one is not capable of actually taking time to invest in the election to find the most appropriate candidate, then one must remove themselves from voting due to the fact that they are incapable. Many rhetorical strategies are used in the argument. Part when through the sermon, he gave the definition to abortion as "a procedure that stops a heartbeat." He uses definition to directly provide the people with the idea of what he is arguing which can allude to his stance in the argument. He also used antithesis to compare the ideas of capital punishment and immigration and abortion and how they are similar. I found the tone of this argument to be sincere and showed that it was given for the betterment of the people. It was a controversial topic, but showed forgiveness with urgency to investigate and understand the facts of the election. The end of the sermon reveals that the priest was only the messenger because the bishop had written the sermon and this plays into the rhetorical strategy because the diction is the authority of the bishop and is conveyed through the priest who most likely is better acquainted with the people. After all he does hear their confessions. Fr Lankeit also does not say who the presidential candidate is that agrees with abortion which causes the people to listen more intently and participate in independent investigation to make the issue more personal. I believe the pulpit was an appropriate place to give this argument because it embodies the ideas of faith that the people need while voting. This is controversial because of the idea of separation of politics and religion and that there should not be talk of politics at church.
ReplyDeleteMandy, I agree on the fact that lives are depending on how people vote. It is sad to see the topic like this, but it is very true. I also liked your addition of describing his tone as a betterment of the people. Great blog!
DeleteI agree that this speech was given for the betterment of the people. I really like how you connected the fact that lives depend on this vote, and how you recognized that one who is incapable of taking time to look into voting should not vote.
DeleteAsdf
ReplyDelete