LA Times Editorial: Teaching the Pope

[Judeluke]

I read this and was wondering what people thought:
latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-pope14nov14,0,3829812.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

Teaching the pope

During his visit to the U.S. in April, Benedict XVI could learn the value of separation of church and state.
November 14, 2007

Pope Benedict XVI will be preaching on his visit to Washington and New York next April, his first trip to the United States as pope. That’s part of a pope’s job description. But many American Catholics hope that the papal visit will double as what politicians in this country call a “listening tour.” They know that, erudite as this former theology professor may be, he still might be able to learn something from their experience in a pluralistic country where the Catholic faith has flourished despite – or because of – the separation of church and state…(click on the link for the full story)

I find it interesting the media finds in necessary to tell our Pope how to think and act.

Judeluke

 

[mlchance]

I find it interesting the media finds in necessary to tell our Pope how to think and act.

What’s more amusing is the LA Times presuming to lecture the leader of the Church which fought for centuries to separate herself from the state.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[beckers]

This is my favorite part…"But many American Catholics hope that the papal visit will double as what politicians in this country call a “listening tour.” " The Times has not a clue about why the pope is visiting or how the church runs. Peoples can scream and hollow all we want for “changes” but it’s not going to happen. The church is not (thankful) a democracy…

 

[bones_IV]

It is obvious this author has an ax to grind.

*“Earlier this year, Benedict seemed to endorse the hard-line view, answering ‘yes’ when asked if he agreed with the idea that Mexican legislators who voted to legalize abortion should be excommunicated. But a spokesman later issued a clarification that, while reasserting church teaching against abortion, left unclear whether the pope would deny Communion to pro-choice politicians.”

*Someone needs to relate the message to the Vatican officials that it’s Benedict’s job to teach the gospel.

*He would be wiser to listen to other Catholics, laypeople as well as clergy, who know what mischief would be caused by a decree that would seem to force some Catholic officials to choose between their responsibility to their constituents or the Constitution and their standing in the church.

*So the L.A. Times is allowed to have an opinion but the Pope isn’t? That’s radical! All part of the dictatorship of Totalitarianism.

*These American Catholics believe, as President Kennedy said in 1960, in “an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president – should he be Catholic – how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.”

*To the liberal left, separation of Church and State means freedom from the Church! Which is the code word for a Totalitarian type democracy like that of the French Revolution! And they calls themselves “American Catholics”? ROFTL…. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. All done in the name of “tolerance”. Separation of Church and State is NOT ABSOLUTE! Like Father Corapi says, “Don’t be so open minded, that your brains fall out.”

 

[Meunke]

“He would be wiser to listen to other Catholics, laypeople as well as clergy, who know what mischief would be caused by a decree that would seem to force some Catholic officials to choose between their responsibility to their constituents or the Constitution and their standing in the church.”

Have any of you seen that movie that came out a few years back called “U-571”?

If so, you remember the part when they are on the surface, the german plane is coming in low while the commander is telling the AA gunner to hold his fire while the other sailor is yelling for him to shoot. After the plane passed over, the commander throws a hard right fist right into the sailor’s jaw and says the line “What the h### are you doing? This ain’t a $^%%$* democracy!”

I would love to see the Holy Father do something like that to these “other Catholics.” Yeah, I know, will never happen, but it’s a GERAT mental image.

“choose between responsibility to their constituents or the Constitution and their standing in the church.”

• It isn’t necessary to choose, as they don’t have to be in opposition. There is nothing anti-Catholic in the Constitution. This conflict only exists if you believe that politicians have a responsibility to provide things like Abortion to people.

 

[Joe_Stong]

I love it when these people hide behind the excuse “I was merely doing what my constituents wanted” by voting for an abortion bill or some other innocent-life-destroying-measure.

Somehow this “I had to do it for the constituents” reason is always a one-way street: it only works to advance socialism and more immorality.

Gay marriage? Sure only 2% of the population wants it and massive majorities of both parties don’t but hey, gotta do what “the constituents” want right?..i.e. vote for the minority’s agenda, majority be damned.

Embronic-killing research? Sure! Gotta support the abortion-phrama complex and another absolute minority’s desires, after all, “they’re my constituents”.

It was like Kerry claiming in the same paragraph that “his deeply held religious convictions” where what motivated him to support various types of welfare and environmental regulations but that same faith and conviction was off limits when it came to “abortion” since in the latter he’d be “forcing his belief on others” (as though the former wasn’t a case of forcing his belief on others?!)

 

[bones_IV]

I love it when these people hide behind the excuse “I was merely doing what my constituents wanted” by voting for an abortion bill or some other innocent-life-destroying-measure.

Somehow this “I had to do it for the constituents” reason is always a one-way street: it only works to advance socialism and more immorality.

Gay marriage? Sure only 2% of the population wants it and massive majorities of both parties don’t but hey, gotta do what “the constituents” want right?..i.e. vote for the minority’s agenda, majority be damned.

Embronic-killing research? Sure! Gotta support the abortion-phrama complex and another absolute minority’s desires, after all, “they’re my constituents”.

It was like Kerry claiming in the same paragraph that “his deeply held religious convictions” where what motivated him to support various types of welfare and environmental regulations but that same faith and conviction was off limits when it came to “abortion” since in the latter he’d be “forcing his belief on others” (as though the former wasn’t a case of forcing his belief on others?!)

Kerry’s “deeply held religious convictions” are of the Devil!

 

[inthecloud]

I do not see any of those “catholic” democrats as religious at all. In the best of cases they are cultural catholics. Thats it.

 

[edwest2]

The sons and daughters of the Hippies, Radicals, Anarchists and Leftists are now in the media and have decided to bring things more out in the open, namely, their way is the right way. Let’s examine their views:

Abortion? You’re not killing a human being.

Embryonic Stem Cell research? You’re not killing a human being.

Euthenasia? The Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors includes the phrase: “first, do no harm.”

Separation of Church and State? Everybody can say or do whatever they like, except for you religious people with your crazy, superstitious, non-science based ‘beliefs’ about abortion and embryonic stem cell research which will lead to cures, maybe, possibly, we sure hope so. And no, we’re not going to discuss Adult Stem Cells.

So, the title of the article should have been: Teaching the Pope to Think like our fellow Leftists, subtitled: It’s Our Country Now.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tomarin]

the shallowness and foolishness of these journalists never ceases to amaze me. yes, separation of church and state is enshrined in our constitution, and for good reason, but that does not and cannot negate one’s freedom of conscience.

and catholicism teaches that one’s conscience is formed by the teaching of the church, which has always unequivocably denounced abortion as a great evil. it’s not a matter that is up for debate or negotiation. the church is not a democratic republic, or a publicly-owned business with shareholders. it is of another nature from these earthly, man-made institutions altogether.

what’s so hard to understand about that?

 

[edwest2]

The phrase “separation of Church and State” appears nowhere in the Constitution. This is a myth that is often repeated. Also known as the “establishment clause.”

Congress is prohibited from making a law that establishes a State Religion and religious people are guaranteed the free exercize of their beliefs. (Also, rarely, referred to as the “free exercize clause.”) I am not even hinting at establishing any religion as the only religion in this country.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tomarin]

The phrase “separation of Church and State” appears nowhere in the Constitution. This is a myth that is often repeated. Also known as the “establishment clause.”

i don’t have any problem with the phrase “separation of church and state” per se – i just don’t agree that it means that one doesn’t follow one’s conscience while participating in political life, which is what modern secularists want to impose on us when they invoke it. not believing in god (or at least in organized religion), they don’t recognize that the church has a valid role to play in providing moral guidance to believing citizens.

the full text of the first amendment with respect to religion is: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercize thereof”.

i think it’s wonderful to live in a country that has freedom of religion (as i’m sure you do too).

 

[edwest2]

Yes, I do. And we can get along.

God bless,
Ed

 

[MollyF]

*He would be wiser to listen to other Catholics, laypeople as well as clergy, who know what mischief would be caused by a decree that would seem to force some Catholic officials to choose between their responsibility to their constituents or the Constitution and their standing in the church. These American Catholics believe, as President Kennedy said in 1960, in “an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president – should he be Catholic – how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.”
I think that it is ironic that the LA Times is suggesting that the Church play no role in the moral development of a person living in the US. I thought this was freedom of religion not freedom from religion. This is going too far. They want to take God out of everything. If the Church wants to take care of the souls of it’s members then she has the right to do that. This means that if a person is committing a moral sin or is supporting evil then it is the job of the Church to help this soul. One way is to not have him or her receive Jesus because he/she is separated from God and needs to receive absolution in confesson before the bond is back. Why is the media sticking it’s nose where it doesn’t belong? By the way Kennedy was saying this BEFORE abortion was legal in the US. I wonder what he would say if he was still alive? God is part of America and the media wants him out.

 

[Harmony1988]

The pope would easily demolish the whole L.A Times staff in a debate, 60+ years of brilliant intellect.

 

[bones_IV]

The pope would easily demolish the whole L.A Times staff in a debate, 60+ years of brilliant intellect.

It’s why he’s in a class all by himself.

 

[Roy5]

Hm! I guess I’m in the minority. The root cause of much of American anti-Catholicism in years past was the position of the Vatican that there should not be separation of church and state. Protestants from Europe this fear with them. The “Syllabus of Errors” by Pope Pius IX (1870?) was very specific about that, and this was used for generations to stir up suspicion of the Catholic Church among Americans.

John F. Kennedy put this fear to rest in 1960, but it is not far beneath the surface, and any perceived attempt by a Pope to intefere in US politics is dangerous. It could not only rekindle anxiety about Catholicism among Protestants, Jews and others but alienate many Catholics as well. If the Pope declares that the Eucharist is to be denied to Catholic politicians who are pro-choice that would mean turning away many, probably the majority, of Catholic members of Congress. Just imagine what the consequences would be. It seems to me that every Catholic candidate for president, Republican (Giuliani) or Democrat (Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, etc) support choice - though they claim to be anti-abortion on a personal level.
Keep smiling

 

[bones_IV]

Hm! I guess I’m in the minority. The root cause of much of American anti-Catholicism in years past was the position of the Vatican that there should not be separation of church and state. Protestants from Europe this fear with them. The “Syllabus of Errors” by Pope Pius IX (1870?) was very specific about that, and this was used for generations to stir up suspicion of the Catholic Church among Americans.

The Syllabus of Errors was a referrence to the situation in Spain.

John F. Kennedy put this fear to rest in 1960, but it is not far beneath the surface, and any perceived attempt by a Pope to intefere in US politics is dangerous.

We live in a Judeo-Christian society.

 It could not only rekindle anxiety about Catholicism among Protestants, Jews and others but alienate many Catholics as well.

An anxiety that is unfounded.

If the Pope declares that the Eucharist is to be denied to Catholic politicians who are pro-choice that would mean turning away many, probably the majority, of Catholic members of Congress.

How can you claim that pro-abortion politicians are justified in killing innocent children?

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I find it interesting the media finds in necessary to tell our Pope how to think and act.

And we should tell them what they can do with their paper by not buying this trash. Maybe when they declare bankruptcy (which some are closer than you think) maybe then they will wake up. Of course, then it may be too late.

 

[bones_IV]

And we should tell them what they can do with their paper by not buying this trash. Maybe when they declare bankruptcy (which some are closer than you think) maybe then they will wake up. Of course, then it may be too late.

I won’t feel one bit sorry for them either. They will have brought it on themselves.