Biden taking Pelosi, N.M. governor to papal inauguration

[Lucky7]

This may be true for private sin, but public opposition to Church teaching by a public figure needs public recanting of having done so (ie a public statement that they no longer support or condone legal abortion in this case)

But apparently this means the Church requires “public humiliation” by some in this thread.

But you’re right. That is what is supposed to happen.

 

[Lucky7]

Who cares, anyway. Calls for a lack of of charity usually come when someone wants to defend another poster who simultaneously posts false information about the Church and also coincidentally agrees with them.

You’re right. I shouldn’t care. However, if someone is going to point fingers at me, then they should be able to back it. If they can’t, then they shouldn’t be pointing fingers.

 

[LisaA]

But apparently this means the Church requires “public humiliation” by some in this thread.

But you’re right. That is what is supposed to happen.

Why do you think anyone wants public humiliation? I think Catholics hope first that Biden and Pelosi will not have enough class not to step forward for Communion or if they do step up are given a blessing just as anyone else who is not in Communion with the Church is given. I have taken non-Catholic friends to Mass and they walk down the aisle, arms crossed and are blessed by our Priest. I hardly think this is public humiliation. I think it’s very respectful of our Church and more importantly of Christ in the Eucharist.

Lisa

 

[Frank_Drebin]

You’re right. I shouldn’t care. However, if someone is going to point fingers at me, then they should be able to back it. If they can’t, then they shouldn’t be pointing fingers.

I heart you. Calls of being uncharitable smack of whining to me, frankly.

 

[Lucky7]

Why do you think anyone wants public humiliation? I think Catholics who hope first that Biden and Pelosi will not have enough class not to step forward for Communion or if they do step up are given a blessing just as anyone else who is not in Communion with the Church is given. I have taken non-Catholic friends to Mass and they walk down the aisle, arms crossed and are blessed by our Priest. I hardly think this is public humiliation. I think it’s very respectful of our Church and more importantly of Christ in the Eucharist.

Lisa

No, no no…I don’t feel this way. I am pointing out how others in this thread would see it. Reread that post! I feel like when it comes to this topic my posts are constantly misinterpreted.

 

[LisaA]

No, no no…I don’t feel this way. I am pointing out how others in this thread would see it. Reread that post! I feel like when it comes to this topic my posts are constantly misinterpreted.

Quite honestly I don’t think anyone participating wants public humiliation. It sounds as if you believe some do want to see Biden and Pelosi get the smackdown. Maybe I have totally misread or misunderstood…do you think some truly want them to be publically embarrassed? I don’t. But apologies for making an incorrect statement if I am wrong here.

Lisa

 

[Lucky7]

Quite honestly I don’t think anyone participating wants public humiliation. It sounds as if you believe some do want to see Biden and Pelosi get the smackdown. Maybe I have totally misread or misunderstood…do you think some truly want them to be publically embarrassed? I don’t. But apologies for making an incorrect statement if I am wrong here.

Lisa

Uggh. I am saying that there are others here who THINK this is a form of public humiliation…and that that is what we want. The fact that the Church requires public officials to recant their anti-Catholic views PUBLICALLY would apparently seem to be “public humiliation” as well to those posters.

 

[Julianna]

Who cares, anyway. Calls for a lack of of charity usually come when someone wants to defend another poster who simultaneously posts false information about the Church and also coincidentally agrees with them.

You’d think for all the seemingly trivial things they suspend and ban people for around here, lying about Church teachings would carry a bit more weight.

Geez, Frank, how much do you know about Frank Drebin? Did you know the Church holds a strict ban against contraception? I’m sure you do. But you chose the name Frank Drebin. I guess you missed the scene where Frank and his lady love (played by Priscilla Presley) pulled a huge condom over their heads to practice safe sex. Interesting.

It is one thing to “teach” someone the error of their ways, it’s truly another to teach as Jesus did. What false information did BlueCane post? What false information did I post?

Glad you aren’t running the boards as anyone who disagrees with you would be banned. This is a discussion not a shouting a match. It is evident you do not care for the President, Ms. Pelosi, the Kennedy’s or VP Biden. I don’t care for John Ashcroft, Don Rumsfeld, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. However, if the President chose to send either one of these people to represent the US, it would be his decision. I would not come on a message board, slamming the President’s choice (for which I have no control over), nor would I wish the public humiliation of said representatives.

I would also know that the Pope would have the brains, common courtesy and grace bestowed upon him by his position as the Vicar of Christ to handle the situation appropriately.

 

[ProVobis]

So why did Speaker Boehner decline?

 

[LisaA]

So why did Speaker Boehner decline?

Said he need to stay in Washington because of all the work that needs to be done. He’s right in that but what about the unintended consequences. Pelosi with that “what me worry” attitude about the mess in Washington and excited about a free trip to Rome jumps at the chance…ugh

Lisa

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

People have responded numerous times that this is not what it is about but it keeps coming up as “public humiliation”. I think what you are sensing is a number of posters who are frustrated with the fact that these politicians have been allowed to receive well before this event. We shouldn’t even have to have this conversation. I don’t see refusing communion as public humiliation on the part of the priest. I see it as a consequence of refusing to listen to and disobeying the Church on the part of the communicant. If I made a point of publically disobeying Church teaching on receiving communion, I should expect to be refused publically. If I feel humiliated, that is on me, not the priest.

Show mercy, don’t rush to condemn, new pope urges

“I think even we are sometimes like these people, who on the one hand want to listen to Jesus, but on the other hand, sometimes we like to stone others and condemn others. The message of Jesus is this: mercy,” he said at the morning Mass.

Trust in the Church to deal with all sins, including our own.

 

[Lucky7]

Show mercy, don’t rush to condemn, new pope urges

Trust in the Church to deal with all sins, including our own.

I’m all for mercy. The Pope also said,

“The Lord never tires of forgiving, never! It is we who tire of asking for forgiveness,” he said at the Mass

For the politicians who continue to receive communion, have they asked for forgiveness and gone and “sinned no more”?

It is also merciful of a priest to deny communion in these instances.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m all for mercy. The Pope also said,

“The Lord never tires of forgiving, never! It is we who tire of asking for forgiveness,” he said at the Mass

For the politicians who continue to receive communion, have they asked for forgiveness and gone and “sinned no more”?

It is also merciful of a priest to deny communion in these instances.

I agree with the Pope, and the merciful priest. They are the authoritative men of the Church. We can assist our brothers, and sisters, with fraternal correction, but that takes a one on one communication to begin with and not a third party communication by judging the sins on a public forum that those need correcting are not known to be on.

 

[Lapey]

Show mercy, don’t rush to condemn, new pope urges

Trust in the Church to deal with all sins, including our own.

Big difference in a sanction placed to a public official because of public and obstinate rejection of Church teaching on intrinsic evils and the thought of condemnation to Hell. No one here is condemning anyone. Please speak with charity and truth.

If you can find anyone who is calling for them to be refused Holy Communion saying they are or should be condemned to Hell then please site those statements. If you cannot find any then don’t imply that there are.

Mercy is correcting someone who is in sin, please correct me if needed. In today’s Gospel Jesus shows mercy by forgiving, and justice by convicting those who would have condemned her to death by stoning.

But Jesus did something more than what most see these days, He told her to GO AND SIN NO MORE!

Jesus did meet her where she was, in her sin; then He lifted her out of her sin by His forgiving mercy. At that point she had an option, a choice to make; she could choose the way of Jesus, or reject it and continue to live as she was and by that choice condemn herself.

These politicians have a possibility of God’s mercy, but first they must realize they are in need of God’s mercy. As it is now, these two “Catholic” politicians have no clue that there is a problem; thus they should be told not to present themselves for Holy Communion and as Jesus called the woman in today’s Gospel to “sin no more”, so should these be directed to sin no more.

PS. yes, this call to sin no more applies to me as much as it does them and everyone. So don’t even go there.

 

[Lapey]

I agree with the Pope, and the merciful priest. They are the authoritative men of the Church. We can assist our brothers, and sisters, with fraternal correction, but that takes a one on one communication to begin with and not a third party communication by judging the sins on a public forum that those need correcting are not known to be on.

Having a conversation is far from judging, don’t you think?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Big difference in a sanction placed to a public official because of public and obstinate rejection of Church teaching on intrinsic evils and the thought of condemnation to Hell. No one here is condemning anyone. Please speak with charity and truth.

If you can find anyone who is calling for them to be refused Holy Communion saying they are or should be condemned to Hell then please site those statements. If you cannot find any then don’t imply that there are.

Mercy is correcting someone who is in sin, please correct me if needed. In today’s Gospel Jesus shows mercy by forgiving, and justice by convicting those who would have condemned her to death by stoning.

But Jesus did something more than what most see these days, He told her to GO AND SIN NO MORE!

Jesus did meet her where she was, in her sin; then He lifted her out of her sin by His forgiving mercy. At that point she had an option, a choice to make; she could choose the way of Jesus, or reject it and continue to live as she was and by that choice condemn herself.

These politicians have a possibility of God’s mercy, but first they must realize they are in need of God’s mercy. As it is now, these two “Catholic” politicians have no clue that there is a problem; thus they should be told not to present themselves for Holy Communion and as Jesus called the woman in today’s Gospel to “sin no more”, so should these be directed to sin no more.

PS. yes, this call to sin no more applies to me as much as it does them and everyone. So don’t even go there.

I posted a link to an article quoting the Pope and stated, myself, ‘Trust in the Church to deal with all sins, including our own.’ I cannot see how it lack truth or charity and certainly didn’t mean it to lack either.

The thread has several posters who call for a public refusal of communion. I never added anything about a condemnation to hell. The public refusal of communion is something I addressed in another post to you. At a Mass, I couldn’t tell you who was refused communion, voluntarily or not, because my focus is not supposed to be on others, but on Christ.

We, the laity and not necessarily the men of the Church, are quick to pick up stones. The Pope has given us instruction, which I believe to be proper. As he has given us proper instruction, I trust he would give anyone proper instruction.

We, the laity again, can offer ‘fraternal correction,’ according to Christ’s instructions on how to gain a brother, and that is one on one. Third party attacks on a public forum, in hopes it reaches those needing the correction is not something I saw Christ teach, or the Church since.

I agree about the circumstances that one should not receive communion. I also understand the implications of doing so anyway. As for those that do, the laity should pray for them, and offer guidance when the opportunity presents itself, with love and a true desire for mercy for them. That’s what I believe the Pope was teaching.

You’ve heard you can catch more flies with honey. Attacking, or condemnations could actually work opposite of the desired goal by pushing those in need of correction further away. If that were the case, I’d see culpability for myself if I used that type tactic.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Having a conversation is far from judging, don’t you think?

Maybe I’m misreading some of the posts that seem to condemn and call for a public refusal of communion.

 

[Julianna]

I agree with the Pope, and the merciful priest. They are the authoritative men of the Church. We can assist our brothers, and sisters, with fraternal correction, but that takes a one on one communication to begin with and not a third party communication by judging the sins on a public forum that those need correcting are not known to be on.

 

[Lucky7]

I agree with the Pope, and the merciful priest. They are the authoritative men of the Church. We can assist our brothers, and sisters, with fraternal correction, but that takes a one on one communication to begin with and not a third party communication by judging the sins on a public forum that those need correcting are not known to be on.

So, would that include condemning other posters for their sins? That is, if we are going to use the word “condemning” as loosely as you seem to be doing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So, would that include condemning other posters for their sins? That is, if we are going to use the word “condemning” as loosely as you seem to be doing.

I’m not condemning anyone. I am conveying my view of my conscience, that I must act accordingly to.

The people, the men of the Church of the times, those Christ often corrected, presented the woman to Christ. Christ dispersed the crowd first, then He, the true Head of the Church, dealt with the woman. His dealing was simple, ‘Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.’ He gave no teaching otherwise for the ‘multitude’, which is equivalent to the laity of today. He spoke to them to love one another, and to pray for one another.