Archbishop Chaput responds to Pelosi-Pope meeting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benedict108
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, when it comes to morality, I am more disappointed with Pelosi and Biden than Obama.

Obama is not a Catholic, so he has somewhat of an excuse. Pelosi and Biden belong to the faith with the fullness of truth and they knowingly dare to lead other Catholics astray. Politicians shouldn’t be using the “religion card” to further their power and influence, especially if they are going against basic beliefs.

It is wrong for them to promote their idea that Catholics can be pro-choice. I would rather have them be atheists (or at least they can keep their mouths shut about religion). At least an atheist wouldn’t be committing scandal and leading Catholics astray.

What nerve Pelosi had to visit the Pope. What was she expecting? Did she actually think she was powerful enough to change his mind? I don’t think so. What happened was just what I expected. If she thought otherwise, that was just plain foolish.
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
The accusations of thoughtlessness, lack of forgiveness, and lack of generosity are vicious calumnies, no more to be tolerated than the distortions of the teachings of the Church perpetrated, for political advantage, by people in public life who, for whatever reason, still seek to cling to the title “Catholic.” They are worse than those who make people thirsty; they seek to poison the well.

Jesus made it very clear that he came to bring both the sword and peace. The sword is to be used to guard the truth that brings peace from those who would corrupt it, and in the end, prevent peace.

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
Vicious calumnies? Hardly. Those accusations are inshrined and vaunted elements of Church doctrine. 👍

The sword seems like the only real interest of the “One True” Church–in my experience. I’m just glad the Pope doesn’t command an army.

I’m also very happy to be an American and not a papist.
 
o_mlly said:
Excommunication is medicinal, not punitive and, therefore, in itself an act of charity.

Peace,
O’Malley
Click to expand...
Right, public censure is the sort of thing that makes a person more happy, healthy, and whole. I’m sorry, it’s been a while since I took human anatomy and physiology. So, clearly I’ve forgotten the importance of medicine to treat illnesses :rolleyes:

In all seriousness, though, if you think excommunication is somehow “not punitive” then I can only assume you have no concept of the words you are using or the historical use of excommunication.
 
JPUSC said:
Yes, when it comes to morality, I am more disappointed with Pelosi and Biden than Obama.

Yes, definitely, however I am praying for all of them!

Obama is not a Catholic, so he has somewhat of an excuse. Pelosi and Biden belong to the faith with the fullness of truth and they knowingly dare to lead other Catholics astray. Politicians shouldn’t be using the “religion card” to further their power and influence, especially if they are going against basic beliefs.

According to St. Paul, we are to judge only our brethren. :yup: That said, we don’t truly know what they were brought up with - maybe what they went through in their upbringing would have repelled the strongest faith among us.🤷

**It is wrong for them to promote their idea that Catholics can be pro-choice. **I would rather have them be atheists (or at least they can keep their mouths shut about religion). **At least an atheist wouldn’t be committing scandal and leading Catholics astray.
**
Now, we know that she has been taught properly (and numerous other Catholics, too). It is up to them to be obedient to HMC, now. I hope they will - although personal pride in political achievements may certainly get in the way.

What nerve Pelosi had to visit the Pope. **What was she expecting? **Did she actually think she was powerful enough to change his mind? I don’t think so. What happened was just what I expected. If she thought otherwise, that was just plain foolish.
Click to expand...
A photo-op and a political show of “devotion”. Or, maybe there was a part of her that really wasn’t sure. I can’t be positive, but I know it would be foolish of me to follow her in any way! I just hope the many Catholics that she has taught erroneously will stop following her (unless, of course, she repents - there are numerous prayers out there for her, so He Will choose when to make the answers manifest).
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
I’m not sure I see your point. I did not present the analogy in the context in which you are using it. You are not following my analogy. You are using the same source, and offering a new analogy.
Click to expand...
My point is that your analogy includes an element that isn’t even in the story: the element of forgiveness. You presume Jesus did not forgive the woman caught in adultery because Jesus did not offer it in the written Word. My analogy includes an element that is actually in the story - the element of Jesus not condemning.

I’m not suggesting your analogy is wrong, I am suggesting that your analogy lacks the key element of Christ’s intention at the meeting with the adulterous woman - that Jesus withheld forgiveness to the adulterous woman.
Gerry Hunter:
I’ve heard politicians (US and Canada) try to wiggle past the Church’s teachings on this issue. That’s one thing. But misrepresenting that teaching, in an effort at political self-justification is another, and a more serious, matter.
Click to expand...
We are in agreement that it is indeed a more serious matter.
Gerry Hunter:
Condemn Nancy? As a Catholic, I’m more ashamed of her. (And Paul Martin and Jean Cretien, among others, up here in Canada, for the record.) But this has to be said: By her fruits she will be known, and she is presently bearing rotten and toxic fruit. And being a “fruit inspector” is not the same as being what is commonly called “judgmental.”
Click to expand...
I’ll say this much: The Catholic Church needs to do a better job of proclaiming the Truth of matters such as abortion. The Pope is to be commended for how they handled Nancy Pelosi’s meeting. No photo-ops so she is not able to use them for political gain and a quick response to what the Pope discussed with her.
 
(Edited)

Excommunication is something a Catholic does to his or her own self. The Church, when it publicly notes this sad turn of events, does so to protect others, and also to make it clear to the person involved what their actual spiritual state is, if that be necessary, or both. Anatomy and psychology have nothing to do with the issue of the state and disposition of a person’s immortal soul. Bringing them up bespeaks a confusion of categories. As interested as the Church certainly is in the temporal well-being of her children, her overriding concern is their spiritual and eternal well being, as it properly should be.

A happy, healthy, and whole (from a temporal and material perspective) person, through happenstance, can meet death quite suddenly, say through being hit by a car. But their spiritual state can be such that they go straight to punishment in hell. The Church fails her children if she lets them meet death in that state without lifting a finger to prevent it – and meet death they surely will. That’s life.

(Edited)

If excommunication be punitive, then it be self-inflicted punishment. It would be interesting to see, because it would be impossible to produce, instances from history where the historical use of excommunication fits the image that is sought to be conjured above.

Getting back to Nancy and her ilk: If they be excommunicated, they have done it to themselves. The Church, so far, has merely pointed out the errors they have sought to propagate in their utterances. Will their state of excommunication be formally and publicly proclaimed by the Church, if that state exists? If it is deemed appropriate to do so by her Bishops, yes, and if not, no. Has it been discussed with them privately? That’s none of our business.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
…
I’ll say this much: The Catholic Church needs to do a better job of proclaiming the Truth of matters such as abortion. The Pope is to be commended for how they handled Nancy Pelosi’s meeting. No photo-ops so she is not able to use them for political gain and a quick response to what the Pope discussed with her.
Click to expand...
I think I get your drift better now; thanks.

And I think we can both be encouraged that the Bishops in North America have been more active in doing what you call for. And that the active ones are being moves to where their voices can be heard to better effect. I would want them to be more strident at times myself, but I freely admit to not having the patience that I should have, with respect to wanting quick fixes to situations like this.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
(Edited)

It is not what I think; rather what our Church prescribes to all its members:

The Code of Canon Law — 1983 — Cann. 1312 and 1331
Book VI Sanctions in the Church
“TITLE I: THE PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES IN GENERAL
Can. 1311 The Church has its own inherent right to constrain with penal sanctions Christ’s faithful who commit offences.
Can. 1312 §1 The penal sanctions in the Church are:
1° medicinal penalties or censures, which are listed in cann. 1331…
Can. 1331 §1 An excommunicated person is forbidden:
1° to have any ministerial part in the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or in any other ceremonies of public worship;
2° to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments…”

Do you not have rules in your domestic church; never “excommunicated” a child out of love to correct bad behavior or attitude as in “go to your room!”? If so, lucky you.

Ms. Pelosi has a choice: she can quit the Catholic Church. However. she may not simultaneously be a Catholic in good standing and pro-abortion. Ms. Pelosi, please go to your room and think about it.

Peace,
O’Malley
 
I think I saw him on the World Over last evening…He was very impressive, and calmly and kindly explained what our Churches response must be toward people who are flagrantly giving scandal and will not obey their Bishop after he privately tells them they must not receive communion unless they repent and mend their ways…
 
MamaZona said:
Vicious calumnies? Hardly. Those accusations are inshrined and vaunted elements of Church doctrine. 👍
Click to expand...
There is not a single doctrine of the Church that can be cited to back that statement up, which, no doubt, is why none is cited. This reads like Lorraine Boettner or Jack Chick.
MamaZona said:
The sword seems like the only real interest of the “One True” Church–in my experience. I’m just glad the Pope doesn’t command an army.
Click to expand...
The experience cited above, based on a review of the posts of the claimer, appears to be comparabe to that of a person who has dabbled a toe by the sea shore, found the water to be wet, and used this as a basis to make pronouncements on oceanography.
MamaZona said:
I’m also very happy to be an American and not a papist.
Click to expand...
It goes without saying that there is noting to prevent one from being an American (or Canadian, or Mexican, or Spaniard or …) and also a Catholic. (I make the assumption here that this is what is meant by the rude term used at the end of the sentence). Of course, it is very superficial to base an assessment on the satisfactory nature of one’s state - particularly one’s spiritual state - on feelings alone.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
redrosetea said:
I think I saw him on the World Over last evening…He was very impressive, and calmly and kindly explained what our Churches response must be toward people who are flagrantly giving scandal and will not obey their Bishop after he privately tells them they must not receive communion unless they repent and mend their ways…
Click to expand...
Really, he was on? I watched the first half of World Over last night and missed that he was going to be on. Rats! I like to see/hear him. Although he’s not ahead of my archdiocese, I think I always felt close to Denver because before we had sports teams here that were ours, we thought of Denver teams as ours (it must carry over in my mind to religion, I guess). Besides, he’s the most orthodox Archbishop (or that I’m aware of, anyway 😊 ) in the West.
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
…I freely admit to not having the patience that I should have, with respect to wanting quick fixes to situations like this.
Click to expand...
I too sometimes wonder why it takes soooo long for resolution to crisis’ such as abortion regarding the Church’s lack of more forceful action. As Catholics, we (that includes the pro-abortion polititians) know the Church’s stance on abortion. It is frustrating seeing “Catholic” polititians not being penalized in some manner for their obvious disregard for Church teaching. It appears to send the message that the Church is “okay” with their dissenting views.

Yet, we must rely on God’s timing, not our own. We need to remember that the Pope didn’t force the issue here - Ms. Pelosi did by requesting the audience in the first place. Nacy Pelosi in an interesting twist of Divine Providence, helped the Church make a more forceful stance in this area. There is more weight to this visit having Ms. Pelosi come to the Pope rather than the other way around.
 
o_mlly said:
It is not what I think; rather what our Church prescribes to all its members:

The Code of Canon Law — 1983 — Cann. 1312 and 1331
Book VI Sanctions in the Church
“TITLE I: THE PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES IN GENERAL
Can. 1311 The Church has its own inherent right to constrain with penal sanctions Christ’s faithful who commit offences.
Can. 1312 §1 The penal sanctions in the Church are:
1° medicinal penalties or censures, which are listed in cann. 1331…
Can. 1331 §1 An excommunicated person is forbidden:
1° to have any ministerial part in the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or in any other ceremonies of public worship;
2° to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments…”

Do you not have rules in your domestic church; never “excommunicated” a child out of love to correct bad behavior or attitude as in “go to your room!”? If so, lucky you.

Ms. Pelosi has a choice: she can quit the Catholic Church. However. she may not simulaneously be a Catholic in good standing and pro-abortion. Ms. Pelosi, please go to your room and think about it.

Peace,
O’Malley
Click to expand...
It may be a medicinal penalty but it is a penalty nonetheless in response to a “crime”.

Do you want to know why the Catholic Church doesn’t go about excommunicating folks like Pelosi? It is because they know, deep down, people would flood out of the club in large numbers. The Church knows where and how the bread is buttered. :rolleyes:
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
…but I freely admit to not having the patience that I should have, with respect to wanting quick fixes to situations like this.

Gerry
Click to expand...
Come on, Gerry, don’t back down now!

You are right on, and you are saying it so graciously. 🙂

It’s time the Catholic Church sets straight the Pelosis/Bidens/Kennedys of the world. St. Paul would not have be afraid to do so…and he wouldn’t have given a second thought to those who would have called him judgmental.

Judgmental is the most overused word in society today…oh, wait…maybe it’s tied with intolerance.
 
MamaZona said:
It may be a medicinal penalty but it is a penalty nonetheless in response to a “crime”.

Do you want to know why the Catholic Church doesn’t go about excommunicating folks like Pelosi? It is because they know, deep down, people would flood out of the club in large numbers. The Church knows where and how the bread is buttered. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, it’s not that - it is because the Church has to remain diplomatic with world leaders and as the U.S. is a major superpower, things would go very badly if its ties to the Vatican were to be severed.
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
There is not a single doctrine of the Church that can be cited to back that statement up, which, no doubt, is why none is cited. This reads like Lorraine Boettner or Jack Chick.

The experience cited above, based on a review of the posts of the claimer, appears to be comparabe to that of a person who has dabbled a toe by the sea shore, found the water to be wet, and used this as a basis to make pronouncements on oceanography.

It goes without saying that there is noting to prevent one from being an American (or Canadian, or Mexican, or Spaniard or …) and also a Catholic. (I make the assumption here that this is what is meant by the rude term used at the end of the sentence). Of course, it is very superficial to base an assessment on the satisfactory nature of one’s state - particularly one’s spiritual state - on feelings alone.

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
This is where I have a good laugh at your expense “Gerry”. The church was my second home. I was, frankly, a better and more consistent volunteer and mass attendee than many of my “good catholic” parish members.

I wasn’t there just for celestial fire insurance by way of the Eucharist. I actually gave a damn. Which is more than I can say about the judgemental ignoramuses who sprinted out of church as though the place were on fire once they’d gotten their fill of the Holy Spirit for the week.

No, my dear “Gerry”, I swam out into the deep waters of the Church. So, I suppose that is why I was nearly drowned? Because no one warned me about the deadly undercurrent? (To follow your aqueous metaphor?)

As for looking up the specific church doctrines, I confess, I cannot. Mainly because I took every Catholic book in the house and set it alight in my back yard the night I had my final straw with the church.

All that remains of the “Catholic” literature in my house is ash, which has long since arrived at the city dump–I dare say, where it belongs.

If people like Nancy Pelosi and Obama represent the will of the people (which, it is a fair argument to say whether they do or do not–I’m not going down that path) and are expected to listen to the people…and the people, quite frankly, aren’t interested in outlawing abortion by a majority vote, then Nancy Pelosi and Obama are bound by the will of the majority.

The way I see it, Pelosi would have to quit her job to satisfy the church. Her job, however, has made no such claims against her spirituality.

So, I guess you can be a “Good Catholic” (aka papist) and live wherever you like. You just can’t be an elected member of the republic unless you’d like to be excommunicated (for medicinal purposes). 👍
 
JPUSC said:
No, it’s not that - it is because the Church has to remain diplomatic with world leaders and as the U.S. is a major superpower, things would go very badly if its ties to the Vatican were to be severed.
Click to expand...
“Very badly” I’m guessing, means the church would lose a lot of members…

I’m not saying all Catholics would jump ship, but a good number would. Think of how many kids you see trailing in behind the husbands and wives at mass…and please don’t tell me they had a maximum of three kids through rigid adherence to NFP. I’m not buying. There were too many “Good Catholics” I ran into who were sterilized or on birth control.

If the Vatican went militant over the “pro-life” issue and strict adherence to birth control doctrine, you wouldn’t see more babies born. You’d see more empty pews. I’m willing to bet money on it.
 
sisterpatril said:
It sure does…and it’s not by cafeteria Catholics!!!😃
Click to expand...
Really now? You think so. Well, I suppose you are entitled to your opinion.

Perhaps that is true on a international basis, but in pluralistic, developed, western nations, I highly doubt that pushing the “pick-n-choose” people out would swell the membership ranks.

RC parishes would be very quiet and lonely places if the Vatican were to force strict adherence to ALL church doctrines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top