American Life League: We Insist Bishops Must Deny Pro-Abortion Politicians Communion

[elts1956]

I was being sarcastic. The Catechism will not be changed to strike out the word “charitable” and add in public admonishment and ordering to those who reject advice and instruction given.

How protestant to conclude that a lay person is competent to instruct a Bishop on how to do his job. Bishops are the primary teachers of the faith in their diocese. This too is Church law and articulated in the Catechism. Who appointed Judi as the “super Bishop” to “insist” all the Bishops in the US conform to her wishes? I must have missed the press release from the Vatican.

Oh, now I get it. The ends justify the means. Judi Brown is authorized to commit actions not normally allowed because of the righteousness of her cause. Now we are justifying the same argument the radical Muslim’s are using in Iraq.

In one issue of This Rock (March '98), the instance of Honorius and Callistus is mentioned. In this instance, Honorius, much like Judie, is publicly reprimanding his superior, Pope Callistus I. In his criticism, Honorius claims that Callistus upheld orthodoxy only to save face with Honorius. If that is true, than public admonishment upheld Catholic orthodoxy, and the Spirit protected His Church from error.

If the bishops ‘cave’ to public opinion, yet uphold Church law and help in bringing about abortion, how is this bad? We can criticize Judie for playing the public hand, but what about the lax bishops who are, for all intents and purposes, forcing this hand to be played? All it would take is one bishop, just one, to publicly refuse the Body and Blood to a pro-death celebrity, and this little thread is over.

Pray it happens.

 

[elts1956]

Rome has made the point of not saying what must be done in each case; in fact, Rome did a pretty good job of not saying that there should be any carte blanche denial of Communion.

How I arrive at the conclusion? She is pushing for public denial of Communion. That is excoriating them. Addressing it individually with the specific politician, and privately with their pastor or other priests who are likely to be confronted with the issue seems to be the approach that Rome wants, and that most definitely doesn’t suit those who are publicly attempting to force the bishops’ hand in the matter.

Can Catholics disagree with pastoral dicisions? Let me put it this way: generally most people don’t know the sum total of the decision, the facts of the case and the applicable laws sufficiently to make an informed decision. If they know all of that (and I fail to see how, in most circumstances if something is being handled privately that they would have even the beginning of that information), then it is possible they may. But we seem to be approaching a point where there are any number of self-anointed “experts” who seem to know better in almost any given situation than those who are actually involved in that situation.

Does that mean I am against all disagreement with decisions? No, certainly not. But I am constantly amazed that so many people who know so little have so much to say. Particularly when they attempt to manipulate it through a public backlash as she is attempting to do.

Some people have a view of the Church that is an authoritarian model. That is not the model Christ gave us, nor is it the one that the majority of bishops, and Rome, follows. There have been a few issues, for example, that in time have lead to an excommunication. Many seem to think that excommunication is the route that all bishops should be taking and wonder why it is that so few do.

What those people don’t understand is that throughout the history of the Church, and most certainly now, excommunication is rarely used, and is a long process. They seem to want an episcopal leadership that issues anathemas and excommunications with abandon at the first sign of any difference with Church rules and regulations. That simply is not the way it happens, and most certainly is not the Gospel model.

I think she has gone to a political model being used frequently by special interest groups to bring pressure to bear on legislators. I don’t think that is how the Church works; I don’t believe it will be successful; I think she has made a tactical decision that is going to backfire on her, that there are many other ways to handle this issue, and she has not and will not help the pro life community with this choice.

And I think a whole lot of Cathiolics might be better off following the Gospel mandates of prayer and taking care of the poor (and I don’t mean that as simply an economic issue) than trying to second guess every decision the bishops make, most particularly when they don’t even know what is actually going on.
This reminds me of people who criticize judges for the decisons rendered in cases when a) their knowledge of the case is so minimal as to be almost non-existent, and b) their knowledge of law and its complexities could be put into a thimble and leave room for a fat finger. Opinions and halitosis seem to share a lot of characteristics; everybody has them and they both stink.

In the 1940s there was a terrible fire in a Catholic Grade School in Chicago, IL. I think it was Our Lady of the Angels, or something like that. Very few children and their teachers were able to get out of the building and subsequently died.

There were two sisters teaching on the second floor of the school building. The hall became filled with dense black smoke.When both sisters became aware the building was on fire and of the smoke in the hallway, the one sister led her children in prayer. The other sister had her children hold on to each other’s hands and praying, led them to the safety of the stairwell and outside the building. She and all of the children in her care survived. The first sister and all of her students died. Which do you think was the wiser of the two sisters. Think about it.

 

[otjm]

In the 1940s there was a terrible fire in a Catholic Grade School in Chicago, IL. I think it was Our Lady of the Angels, or something like that. Very few children and their teachers were able to get out of the building and subsequently died.

There were two sisters teaching on the second floor of the building. When both became aware the building was on fire, the one sister led her children in prayer. The other sister had her children hold on to each other’s hands and praying, led them to the safety of the stairwell and outside the building. She and all of the children in her care survived. The first sister and all of her students died. Which do you think was the wiser of the two sisters. Think about it.

I don’t know that either of them was wiser, as we do not have enough facts to make that determination. And further, it adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[elts1956]

I don’t know that either of them was wiser, as we do not have enough facts to make that determination. And further, it adds nothing to the discussion.

Of course it does. The one only prayed. The other prayed and took action. One and her children died unnessarily and the other and her children survived to do possibly great things. I compare that, for your edification to those who only pray for change within the Church, for a return to what she was and basically is, and those who also pray for such, but also take action. Still don’t see the connection? Sorry.

 

[otjm]

Of course it does. The one only prayed. The other prayed and took action. One and her children died unnessarily and the other and her children survived to do possibly great things. I compare that, for your edification to those who only pray for change within the Church, for a return to what she was and basically is, and those who also pray for such, but also take action. Still don’t see the connection? Sorry.

Unless you know facts which you are not telling, no, that is not the only possible conclusion. The one who only prayed may have had no alternative. I could string all sorts of scenarios out. Who knows, one of the kids rescued may have turned out to be aserial killer. Give it a rest; it is not a good analogy. It is one of those stories which ends up with a pietistic “All the children who died went straight to heaven; they had all been to Mass and Communion before class”. Let’s stick to bishops and politicians.

 

[elts1956]

Unless you know facts which you are not telling, no, that is not the only possible conclusion. The one who only prayed may have had no alternative. I could string all sorts of scenarios out. Who knows, one of the kids rescued may have turned out to be aserial killer. Give it a rest; it is not a good analogy. It is one of those stories which ends up with a pietistic “All the children who died went straight to heaven; they had all been to Mass and Communion before class”. Let’s stick to bishops and politicians.

In “some” instances I am an action oriented person. (especially if I am going to get fried.) The analogy works for me and that is what is important.

 

[otjm]

The long and the short of it is that we have politicians, both local and national, who profess to be Catholics and appear to be anything but. Pelosi made an *** of herself publicly and several bishops spoke up almost immediately. Biden has come out saying he is going to do all he can along with Obama to protect Roe v. Wade. My governor just got taken to task by my bishop for publicly sponsoring a dinner of Planned Parenthood. The list goes on ad nauseum.

This has been going on for so long that I seriously doubt that many are scandalized as the shock has worn off. Those who are committed Catholics know what the score is; those who are not would be scandalized if the bishops did anything. Right now is not a prudential time to wade into the issue as it will backfire and the result will be felt of decades. As in, anger enough people by public action and those who might be sitting on the fence politically will vote Obama “I want my daughter to be able to have an abortion” into office - and he will be able to appoint 1, 2 or more justices to the Supreme Court. You want him picking them? Seriously? There is way more anti-Catholicism still under the surface in this country than you want to believe; we saw it out here when we had the first vote on Assisted Suicide; and we saw even more when the Church came out boldly on the second vote; more people voted to keep the bill the second time than voted for it the first. Sit on your high throne and pontificate about the “spineless bishops”; you don’t have to live facing the consequences of the resulting whiplash. Actually, you would. Obama has promised to sign a bill that would reverse what little states rights action we have had so far; and do you really think that a Democratic House, Senate and President wouldn’t get that one passed? Are you willing to roll that dice?

It is all well and good to say, as someone from Canada implied, that it really doesn’t matter what the press says. Yes, it does; the talking heads will be all over this, just like they were about the sexual abuse issue. Never mind truth; we are going to have a crucifixion.

In a perfect world, these clowns would be keel-hauled in short order. Last I checked, it was not a perfect world. Over 70% of Americans want some limits put on abortion and the Democrats don’t give a fig. The Republicans played hard ball, and the Dems are intent for pay back. They are going to scream “Bush failed policies!” and take us seriously backwards. You want to throw gasoline on that fire? There aren’t enough turnouts to survive that explosion.

If politicians need to be brought to the woodshed (and I have no problem with that), it needs to be done quietly until there is no alternative, and then it needs to be done when there is no impending election - for the simple reason that even those who are knee-jerk anti Catholics have a short memory.

And all those uber-Catholics who want to play this in public need to get out their dictionary and look up the definiton of prudence.

 

[elts1956]

The long and the short of it is that we have politicians, both local and national, who profess to be Catholics and appear to be anything but. Pelosi made an *** of herself publicly and several bishops spoke up almost immediately. Biden has come out saying he is going to do all he can along with Obama to protect Roe v. Wade. My governor just got taken to task by my bishop for publicly sponsoring a dinner of Planned Parenthood. The list goes on ad nauseum.

This has been going on for so long that I seriously doubt that many are scandalized as the shock has worn off. Those who are committed Catholics know what the score is; those who are not would be scandalized if the bishops did anything. Right now is not a prudential time to wade into the issue as it will backfire and the result will be felt of decades. As in, anger enough people by public action and those who might be sitting on the fence politically will vote Obama “I want my daughter to be able to have an abortion” into office - and he will be able to appoint 1, 2 or more justices to the Supreme Court. You want him picking them? Seriously? There is way more anti-Catholicism still under the surface in this country than you want to believe; we saw it out here when we had the first vote on Assisted Suicide; and we saw even more when the Church came out boldly on the second vote; more people voted to keep the bill the second time than voted for it the first. Sit on your high throne and pontificate about the “spineless bishops”; you don’t have to live facing the consequences of the resulting whiplash. Actually, you would. Obama has promised to sign a bill that would reverse what little states rights action we have had so far; and do you really think that a Democratic House, Senate and President wouldn’t get that one passed? Are you willing to roll that dice?

It is all well and good to say, as someone from Canada implied, that it really doesn’t matter what the press says. Yes, it does; the talking heads will be all over this, just like they were about the sexual abuse issue. Never mind truth; we are going to have a crucifixion.

In a perfect world, these clowns would be keel-hauled in short order. Last I checked, it was not a perfect world. Over 70% of Americans want some limits put on abortion and the Democrats don’t give a fig. The Republicans played hard ball, and the Dems are intent for pay back. They are going to scream “Bush failed policies!” and take us seriously backwards. You want to throw gasoline on that fire? There aren’t enough turnouts to survive that explosion.

If politicians need to be brought to the woodshed (and I have no problem with that), it needs to be done quietly until there is no alternative, and then it needs to be done when there is no impending election - for the simple reason that even those who are knee-jerk anti Catholics have a short memory.

And all those uber-Catholics who want to play this in public need to get out their dictionary and look up the definiton of prudence.

I don’t expect miracles from the Bishops before Nov. 4 and you are absolutely right,now is not the time for them to come out and make statements. I do hope for a miracle though on the side of pro life.

I wish you had made the above statements earlier to rein us in. Sometimes I get too focused and don’t get the whole picture. You have a logical and cool (as in prudent) mind. BUT I want to hear more about this matter AFTER the election.:yup: :yup: :yup:

 

[otjm]

I don’t expect miracles from the Bishops before Nov. 4 and you are absolutely right,now is not the time for them to come out and make statements.

I wish you had made the above statements earlier to rein us in. Sometimes I get too focused and don’t get the whole picture. You have a logical and cool (as in prudent) mind. BUT I want to hear more about this matter AFTER the election.

Things have been picking up; but they are not to the level that some people are demanding. This is dirty laundry, and I disagree that it is best washed in public. That it needs washing I agree whole heartedly. But we have never been a Catholic country, and we are not going to become one soon. Or ever, unless you want to wait for the second coming.

I have had the opportunity to get to know several people who were raised Catholic in supposedly Catholic countries of Europe. I am astounded at the depth of hatred of the Catholic Church they have; and they have had centuries of history of the Church being involved in politics. I don’t need a lecture that this issue is not about politics. I understand that. But I am not the average person in the street, whether that is a Sunday Mass going but poorly catechized Catholic; a cafeteria (also poorly catechized) Catholic; a fallen away Catholic (which is about 2/3s of all Catholics), an active Mainline Protestant (read, liberal); a Bob Jones University “The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon” Protestant; an “I’m spiritual but not religious” theist; a secularist, an aetheist, or any of the rest of those who have not a whole lot more than a visceral reaction if they think that Somebody With A Big Stick Is Beating On Someone Unfairly, and side with the perceived underdog. Truth as the Catholic Church defines it a) no longer matters to a whole lot of people and b) is not identifiable to almost all non-Catholics and all too many Catholics. “Picking on” politiicians for what is identified as a personal and private opinon and not much else is seen as totally unfair, controlling, attempting to influence someone by coercion - the list goes on and on. This country is slower than Europe to secularize, but it is on the same path. Moral persuasion was lost 40 or 50 years ago when the Mainline churches replaced the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of economic and social concerns. The Catholic Church has always been a minority - the largest one, but still a minority, and is seen as primarily irrelevant to most people on the street. And taking Catholic politicians to task in public is going to be misconstrued from the get-go.

The Catholic Church started losing it’s grip on politicians around the time of the Reformation. Anyone who thinks the Reformation was a theological movement and not tightly interlaced with politics was reading a form of revisionist history. We have been losing ground ever since; and if anyone thinks that taking on politicians in public isn’t going to arose a whiplash of significant magnitude is going to find themselves subject to the old dictum “he who fails to understand and learn from history is bound to repeat it”.

 

[elts1956]

Things have been picking up; but they are not to the level that some people are demanding. This is dirty laundry, and I disagree that it is best washed in public. That it needs washing I agree whole heartedly. But we have never been a Catholic country, and we are not going to become one soon. Or ever, unless you want to wait for the second coming.

I have had the opportunity to get to know several people who were raised Catholic in supposedly Catholic countries of Europe. I am astounded at the depth of hatred of the Catholic Church they have; and they have had centuries of history of the Church being involved in politics. I don’t need a lecture that this issue is not about politics. I understand that. But I am not the average person in the street, whether that is a Sunday Mass going but poorly catechized Catholic; a cafeteria (also poorly catechized) Catholic; a fallen away Catholic (which is about 2/3s of all Catholics), an active Mainline Protestant (read, liberal); a Bob Jones University “The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon” Protestant; an “I’m spiritual but not religious” theist; a secularist, an aetheist, or any of the rest of those who have not a whole lot more than a visceral reaction if they think that Somebody With A Big Stick Is Beating On Someone Unfairly, and side with the perceived underdog. Truth as the Catholic Church defines it a) no longer matters to a whole lot of people and b) is not identifiable to almost all non-Catholics and all too many Catholics. “Picking on” politiicians for what is identified as a personal and private opinon and not much else is seen as totally unfair, controlling, attempting to influence someone by coercion - the list goes on and on. This country is slower than Europe to secularize, but it is on the same path. Moral persuasion was lost 40 or 50 years ago when the Mainline churches replaced the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of economic and social concerns. The Catholic Church has always been a minority - the largest one, but still a minority, and is seen as primarily irrelevant to most people on the street. And taking Catholic politicians to task in public is going to be misconstrued from the get-go.

The Catholic Church started losing it’s grip on politicians around the time of the Reformation. Anyone who thinks the Reformation was a theological movement and not tightly interlaced with politics was reading a form of revisionist history. We have been losing ground ever since; and if anyone thinks that taking on politicians in public isn’t going to arose a whiplash of significant magnitude is going to find themselves subject to the old dictum “he who fails to understand and learn from history is bound to repeat it”.

Okay, let the clergy take those politicians to task privately. Hopefully they will do so. BUT I hope we hear about it “through the grape vine” so demoralized Catholics can have hope again.

 

[Jerome42]

Things have been picking up; but they are not to the level that some people are demanding. This is dirty laundry, and I disagree that it is best washed in public. That it needs washing I agree whole heartedly. But we have never been a Catholic country, and we are not going to become one soon. Or ever, unless you want to wait for the second coming.

I have had the opportunity to get to know several people who were raised Catholic in supposedly Catholic countries of Europe. I am astounded at the depth of hatred of the Catholic Church they have; and they have had centuries of history of the Church being involved in politics. I don’t need a lecture that this issue is not about politics. I understand that. But I am not the average person in the street, whether that is a Sunday Mass going but poorly catechized Catholic; a cafeteria (also poorly catechized) Catholic; a fallen away Catholic (which is about 2/3s of all Catholics), an active Mainline Protestant (read, liberal); a Bob Jones University “The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon” Protestant; an “I’m spiritual but not religious” theist; a secularist, an aetheist, or any of the rest of those who have not a whole lot more than a visceral reaction if they think that Somebody With A Big Stick Is Beating On Someone Unfairly, and side with the perceived underdog. Truth as the Catholic Church defines it a) no longer matters to a whole lot of people and b) is not identifiable to almost all non-Catholics and all too many Catholics. “Picking on” politiicians for what is identified as a personal and private opinon and not much else is seen as totally unfair, controlling, attempting to influence someone by coercion - the list goes on and on. This country is slower than Europe to secularize, but it is on the same path. Moral persuasion was lost 40 or 50 years ago when the Mainline churches replaced the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of economic and social concerns. The Catholic Church has always been a minority - the largest one, but still a minority, and is seen as primarily irrelevant to most people on the street. And taking Catholic politicians to task in public is going to be misconstrued from the get-go.

The Catholic Church started losing it’s grip on politicians around the time of the Reformation. Anyone who thinks the Reformation was a theological movement and not tightly interlaced with politics was reading a form of revisionist history. We have been losing ground ever since; and if anyone thinks that taking on politicians in public isn’t going to arose a whiplash of significant magnitude is going to find themselves subject to the old dictum “he who fails to understand and learn from history is bound to repeat it”.

If I may add my thoughts:

Shortly after the implementations of Vatican II changes in the Church there was a movemont amongst various US Clergy which thought that enough had not been done, even though there were substantive changes which benefited the Church over all. These people still did not like the teachings on Birth Control, Contraception, Divorce, the list went on and on.

Thus was born the Spirit of Vatican II, a total fallacy. Many mis-guided Catholics kept holding out that this so-called spirit would somehow come about and relax rulings on Divorce, Birth Contral, Contraception, etc. In retrospect, Pope Paul VI’s warnings came true. We have totally lost respect for life, degraded womanhood and saw the total breakdown of normal marriage.

Finally, the Bishops/ Priests have started doing something about it. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

 

[elts1956]

If I may add my thoughts:

Shortly after the implementations of Vatican II changes in the Church there was a movemont amongst various US Clergy which thought that enough had not been done, even though there were substantive changes which benefited the Church over all. These people still did not like the teachings on Birth Control, Contraception, Divorce, the list went on and on.

Thus was born the Spirit of Vatican II, a total fallacy. Many mis-guided Catholics kept holding out that this so-called spirit would somehow come about and relax rulings on Divorce, Birth Contral, Contraception, etc. In retrospect, Pope Paul VI’s warnings came true. We have totally lost respect for life, degraded womanhood and saw the total breakdown of normal marriage.

Finally, the Bishops/ Priests have started doing something about it. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

Let’s also remember at the time of Vatican II and even beyond til today, most of the clergy’s interpretaion of the Spirit of Vatican II is quite different from that of many laity and some rogue clergy.

 

[Jerome42]

Let’s also remember at the time of Vatican II and even beyond til today, most of the clergy’s interpretaion of the Spirit of Vatican II is quite different from that of many laity and some rogue clergy.

That may be true as evidenced by recent statements by the Bishops. However we need to lose this idea of the Spirit of Vatican II. The Council met, made its rulings/recommendations, end of story. We certainly were not living in the Spirit of Vatican I the century prior to Vatican II were we?

Our focus needs to be on the mis-guided laity. Those rogue clergy need to be censured and put on the right track. Remember, God is watching what we do. Our Lady cannot be expected to extend Her Mantle of Protection on our country unless we truly deserve it.