B
- Status
E
Elzee
Guest
I wish our Holy Father would come down with a mandate on whether or not Communion can be given to politicians who are blatantly pro-choice. We need the Church to speak with one voice on this matter and if our Bishops can’t find that voice, it’s time for Rome to step in and address the issue.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
John Kerry visited Arkansas, and the question of him taking communion came up. A spokesman for the Diocese said, “We don’t want to put politicians under pressure.”
Huh?!?!
In every Catholic church in the land there are people who cannot take communion – Protestants married to Catholics, people who are divorced and remarried, and so on. Do we care about putting them under pressure?
Apparently the bishops think there are two Cathoilic Churches, one for the rich and powerful, and one for everyone else.
Huh?!?!
In every Catholic church in the land there are people who cannot take communion – Protestants married to Catholics, people who are divorced and remarried, and so on. Do we care about putting them under pressure?
Apparently the bishops think there are two Cathoilic Churches, one for the rich and powerful, and one for everyone else.
G
gus
Guest
Has anyone in any church every see anyone denied Communion in a Catholic Church
We all know the rules but we all know how they are ovelooked
Whether we obey them or not is our choice. Its our hearts must be pure. The burder on communion reception is on the
receiver not the priest.
We all know the rules but we all know how they are ovelooked
Whether we obey them or not is our choice. Its our hearts must be pure. The burder on communion reception is on the
receiver not the priest.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It is also incumbent on the priest to not knowingly give communion to one who is not entitled. I have seen an incident where a woman who was known not to be Catholic stepped up for communion, and the priest recognized her and gave her a blessing. The usher then gently led her away.
But regardless – we all know people who attend Mass regularly who cannot take communion. If the Church forthrightly refuses communion to one who is divorced and remarried, and waffles on one who promotes abortion - what does this tell us? Is killing an unmarried child some how less of a sin and crime than getting remarried after divorce?
D
dwc
Guest
A little off topic but still related – about 15 years ago our bishop sent a letter to all Catholics in the diocese stating in no uncertain terms that you cannot be Catholic and vote pro-choice. He told us it was our responsibility to refrain from communion if we voted pro-choice, because we were in fact NOT in communion with the church on a vital point.
My husband and I were very young and newly married and very naive. We got the letter and wondered why he sent these letters out – it was like a duh? moment – of course you can’t be Catholic and prochoice. As we went to our respective places of education and employment and heard the outrage of “good” Catholics, we got an education. People were infuriated because they completely separated their polictical activity from their faith and honestly believed that their bishop was overstepping the boundaries of faith by mingling in political affairs. That’s the real battle line, imo. People have taken the separation of church and state and personalized it. Instead of understanding the clause to refer to the government, they apply it to themselves.
My husband and I were very young and newly married and very naive. We got the letter and wondered why he sent these letters out – it was like a duh? moment – of course you can’t be Catholic and prochoice. As we went to our respective places of education and employment and heard the outrage of “good” Catholics, we got an education. People were infuriated because they completely separated their polictical activity from their faith and honestly believed that their bishop was overstepping the boundaries of faith by mingling in political affairs. That’s the real battle line, imo. People have taken the separation of church and state and personalized it. Instead of understanding the clause to refer to the government, they apply it to themselves.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And the other bishops, would not act in concert with Bishop Burke, tended to give credence to that whiny excuse.
A
a_cermak
Guest
The people you mention who cannot take Communion cannot take it because they are in a state of Sin, they have committed an Act (such as marrying someone while not having an annulment) intentionally and for whatever reason cannot regularize their situtation. The politician has not killed a child (unmarried or otherwise), he has only voted how his constituents (presumably) would have him vote. That’s how politics works, if you get elected with the help of the pro-choice crowd, you really do have to dance with the ones that brung ya or you won’t have a job much longer.
I’ll have to admit I was irritated by the 2004 election and all the discussion of Kerry’s Catholicism because I saw it as using the Sacraments as blackmail to try to get a result (say rollback of abortion rights) without winning at the ballot box (the institutional Church directly pressuring via Church rules, the Catholic pols who disagree with the Church rather than going to the bother of recruiting and supporting pro-life candidates in those states & districts). Because I too am a politician, I decided who needs this battle with my own Church, so now I’m a happy Episcopalian (all the Sacraments with a Church so riven by its inner issues that it has no time to even consider attempting to blackmail its members).
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
A politician is no more authorized to act amorally than anyone else. A vote in Contgress or a state legislature is a formal act. If it furthers the killing of innocent human beings it clearly is an immoral vote.
“Abortion rights?” Do you claim that one human being has a right to kill another, on mere whim?
Are you under the impression that Roe vs Wade was an election?
F
FiremanFrank
Guest
I’m already convinced that NOTHING short of the 2nd Coming will end the insanity that this world now finds itself in.
Witness:
It has to.
It has to …
Witness:
- The United Kingdom has attempted to force Catholic agencies to allow homosexual adoption.
- In the U.S., several regions of the country have seen attempts at forcing Catholic hospitals to provide birth-control or “morning-after” pills – in direct opposition of the Church’s teachings and beliefs.
- In Pennsylvania, a school disallowed a 14-year-old from dressing for Halloween in a Jesus costume. The matter is now in court, but devils and witches of course, are fully admitted.
- Threats have made against church organizations for not employing those who are openly homosexual while Catholic nurses and pharmacists have been persecuted for not dispensing contraceptives or participating in abortions.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
It has to.
It has to …
A
a_cermak
Guest
No, it was a court decision. The efforts since then to rollback the rights have been about elections. In my capacity, I’m unlikely to deal with the issue of abortion, but if the Church can claim a right to blackmail its adherents over that issue, where does it end? I only represent my constituents, not my Church. For me, faith is a private matter that governs my private life.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
this may be considered ok for an episcopalian, but for a catholic it is sinful. if you know something is evil, you can’t participate in that evil. that’s like saying it’s ok to jump off a bridge if your friends tell you to, or it’s ok to follow an unlawful order.
for instance, let’s hypothetically say that the nazi party elected you as a senator. you couldn’t vote on a bill that would legalize the killing of innocent jews and say you are innocent of any wrong doing because you are only representing you constituents. you would be just as guilty for cooperating formally in that grave sin.
i know it’s an extreme example, but you have to be consistent. if it’s wrong to vote for killing innocent jews, than it is just as wrong to vote pro abortion inasmuch as killing innocents is gravely contrary to the will of God.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And therefore no part of a democratic process.
In other words, using the democratic process to correct a judicial wrong. Although I note you seem determined to paint the deliberate killing of the most innocent and helpless amongst us as a “right.”
Now it’s “blackmail” to speak out against the deliberate, pre-meditated murder of millions of innocent lives?
So you would oppose laws against murder, rape, child abuse, and bank robbery and consider that a private matter?
D
dwc
Guest
As I understand it, you were Catholic at the time but because of this switched to Episcopalian? So you, a Catholic, felt that your church was requiring you to follow the tenets of the faith and this was ***blackmail?! ***Wow. I realize this is uncomfortable for politicians, and that they want to be elected, apparently more than anything else, but to accuse the church of blackmail because it requires every Catholic, including politicians, to follow the teachings of the faith is just beyond reason.
A
a_cermak
Guest
I suspect the Church will muddle on just fine without me. Just as I am doing equally fine without the Church.
As far as abortion rights, I take a property rights stance. This means that in the cases where a foetus cannot survive outside the womb (first 3 months), abortion should be legal for any reason because the foetus does not have the right to demand hospitality in his mother’s womb. After the first 3 months I ratchet up the requirements, there should be a good medical reason for the procedure because only a couple more months and a Caesarian can be used and the infant delivered with a chance for life. I would not allow any abortions after the 5.5 month stage, though I would allow, of course, Caesarians at any point after 5.5 months for any reason. Again, the foetus has a better than average chance at survival after that point.
As for laws regarding rape, assault, murder, these are about protecting the rights of citizens and providing for an orderly society, not morality or religion per se.
D
dwc
Guest
I think your decision to formally leave the Catholic church was wise.
S
StMarkEofE
Guest
I dont think the Catholic politicians are intimidated enough in order to change their pro-choice stances. Merely restricting the reception of Communion to those who are openly pro abortion seems not to have any effect. I dont think Rome has any leverage besides restricting the sacraments. She hasnt been able to effect the elections any. Look at the 2006 elections. There are more pro-abotionist in control now that before.
- Status