Pro-Choice Catholic politicians and Communion

[Sanosuke]

Yeah, it’s an interesting price, isn’t it?. We have the freedom to practice Catholicism here but at the same time have to live with the seperation of Church and State. Our forefathers, who were Protestants by the way, were wonderfully wise but yet paradoxically humanly flawed. . .

This has nothing to do with Church and State. It has to do with a bishop doing his job not only to his flock but to his Church.

Well, what aren’t you doing if you try to publically exert influence over our politicians via directly refusing a sacrament? And publically declaring them guilty of scandal because they are trying to best represent the will of the people? Call me naive but I don’t think a politician wakes up every morning and says, “Hmmmm. Let’s see. What scandal can I conjure up today?”

If the will of the people is to kill approximately a million children a year, and a politician panders to the people who support such a thing, he is just as guilty as they are. I see nothing in the Catechism (correct me if I’m wrong) about politicians somehow being above state law. As I recall, all people, pope or laymen, politician or non-voter, are just as accountable for the sins they commit as everyone else. It is also absurd to think that anyone wakes up in the morning and asks themselves what kind of sin they are going to commit. I don’t care if these pro-choice politicians wake up and plan their sins in the morning or not, a sin is a sin is a sin. And as 2272 of the Catechism states, “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense…A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae”. You probably knew that already, but the Church is clear: don’t help out with abortions.

Being a Republic has it’s challenges. I accept that abortion right now may be a “mob rule” kind of psychology at work on pro-choice politicians. But that doesn’t make them guilty of scandal.

Okay, I want this on the record: if you were responsible for sending billions of dollars towards funding abortions, would you be committing an act “which leads another to do evil”? Is an accomplice in a murder the same as the person who pulled the trigger? Is that air you’re breathing?

Well, are you held accountable for voting for Bush, because he is fighting an unjustified war or held accountable for voting for Kerry because he advocates pro-choice? Just curious.

Just curious: when did the Church declare this war unjustified? Because I can name several ocassions where abortion/supporting abortion (or any sin for that matter) has been condemned, but I have not heard anything from the Church on the war.

By who? Taxpayors? The last I thought people who practiced population control spent money on condoms and oral conception themselves, not the taxpayors. I will admit that health insurance will pay for a vascetomy, which is sort of akin to sharing the cost. Honest question - how do the people spend money on abortion and birth control? I am not sure if abortion is covered by health insurance, actually. . .I thought it was elective. I will admit I don’t know.

Then wake up. Billions of your tax dollars are funding abortions and birth control all over Africa (to name one place). The article I am going to show you just tells you that it is happening, not the sheer amount of money that is being sent over there:

Abortion in Africa

Then vote them out. Apparently you have a lot of anger towards our politicians. Remember that is the nice thing about democracy vs. theocracy. You can get rid of them. If you have a scandalous archbishop, it ain’t that easy.

Your assumption is quite false, thank you. It sounds like you are the one who has a problem with politicans. I don’t have this false assumption that all politicians are amoral people. Apparently you didn’t read what I have been telling you, you seem to wish to debate a theocratic caricature of myself instead of actually debating with me.

And Nader has not said anything on abortion one way or the other, except that the state should not “force” women to choose either way. He apparently enjoys playing politics while accusing others of playing politics.

 

[Scanner]

This has nothing to do with Church and State. It has to do with a bishop doing his job not only to his flock but to his Church.

Sanosuke,

Do you then question this bishop?

If the will of the people is to kill approximately a million children a year, and a politician panders to the people who support such a thing, he is just as guilty as they are. I see nothing in the Catechism (correct me if I’m wrong) about politicians somehow being above state law.

Did you mean to say church law? The State law permits abortions.

As I recall, all people, pope or laymen, politician or non-voter, are just as accountable for the sins they commit as everyone else. It is also absurd to think that anyone wakes up in the morning and asks themselves what kind of sin they are going to commit. I don’t care if these pro-choice politicians wake up and plan their sins in the morning or not, a sin is a sin is a sin. And as 2272 of the Catechism states, “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense…A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae”. You probably knew that already, but the Church is clear: don’t help out with abortions.

Yes, the Church is clear. . .

Okay, I want this on the record: if you were responsible for sending billions of dollars towards funding abortions, would you be committing an act “which leads another to do evil”? Is an accomplice in a murder the same as the person who pulled the trigger? Is that air you’re breathing?

Really? Billions of dollars huh? Like 420,000 condoms and a couple of probably understaffed clinics = billions of dollars. Is that an air of exageration I smell? And by the way, did you not think I would read that article? The US is being criticized for pulling funding in this area, not for increasing it.

Just curious: when did the Church declare this war unjustified? Because I can name several ocassions where abortion/supporting abortion (or any sin for that matter) has been condemned, but I have not heard anything from the Church on the war.

I recall the Pope speaking out against it. But like the archbishop in this case, he fell short of actually formally condemning it.

And the Pope was smart in doing so. He’s the best leader we have had.

Then wake up. Billions of your tax dollars are funding abortions and birth control all over Africa (to name one place). The article I am going to show you just tells you that it is happening, not the sheer amount of money that is being sent over there:

Really. Billions, huh?

Your assumption is quite false, thank you. It sounds like you are the one who has a problem with politicans.

I deny that charge but you don’t get off that easily. You are the one who referred to them as “spineless” whereas I referred to their experience as human.

Shall I page up and directly quote you?

I don’t have this false assumption that all politicians are amoral people. Apparently you didn’t read what I have been telling you, you seem to wish to debate a theocratic caricature of myself instead of actually debating with me.

Well, being invertebrate is just a compliment where you come from, I guess.

And Nader has not said anything on abortion one way or the other, except that the state should not “force” women to choose either way. He apparently enjoys playing politics while accusing others of playing politics

Looks like your left with the Communist candidate then.

Listen, I am on your side more than you think.

I think Catholic energy, rather than being spent on condemning politicians and the out-of-wedlock people they represent, withholding sacraments, and trying to enforce law (or rather more accurately change the law) would better spend energy in making adoption more socially acceptable. It is such the part of Christian spirit to take in orphans or fatherless children and provide for them that I don’t know why we don’t focus on that more on changing that aspect of society. It’s a crying shame we have parents just dying to take care of child and yet, we can’t seem to marry the two groups together and facillitate a happy ending to a sin (premartial sex). Of course, abstinence is also key in this prevention. However, I beleive the Church has hit a nail on the head when they said this - sin is managed (that’s why we go to confession after all), we can never stamp it out. I

It’s sad. We still “stone” our women who have a child out of wedlock and they fear it. We just don’t stone them with “rocks”; we stone them with judgement.

And that’s not what Jesus taught us to do at all.

I’ll let you have the last word.

 

[Sanosuke]

Sanosuke,

Do you then question this bishop?

Which one?

Did you mean to say church law? The State law permits abortions.

Well, I did mean to say Church law, but both would apply.

Really? Billions of dollars huh? Like 420,000 condoms and a couple of probably understaffed clinics = billions of dollars. Is
that an air of exageration I smell? And by the way, did you not think I would read that article? The US is being criticized for pulling funding in this area, not for increasing it.

No, that article was simply to show you that the United States does fund abortions in other countries. Here are the numbers on what has been given to Planned Parenthood alone:

prolifealliance.com/Government%20Funding.htm

-From 1987 through 2002, Planned Parenthood received almost two and a half billion dollars (or 30% of it’s entire income) from tax dollars under Title X.

So yes, billions. Or, if you want to look at it the way the article says, that’s 30% of its income. Planned Parenthood is only the largest provider of abortions; it is not the only one. This $2.5 billion is not all that has been given, as Planned Parenthood is only one of many abortion providers.

I deny that charge but you don’t get off that easily. You are the one who referred to them as “spineless” whereas I referred to their experience as human.

Shall I page up and directly quote you?

I’ll save you the trouble:

Sanosuke:
…And you are going to try to convince me that a politician who votes pro-choice is not guilty of scandal? And if politicians are so spineless that they can’t even stand for what they believe, they don’t deserve to be public servants.

“If” usually poses a scenario, does it not? Did I say politicians are all spineless? No, I said that *if they are, then…etc. *If pigs had wings, they could fly. (I’ll probably be quoted as saying pigs have wings and can fly now. >_< )

Well, being invertebrate is just a compliment where you come from, I guess.

…Peace be with you too.

Looks like your left with the Communist candidate then.

Listen, I am on your side more than you think.

I’ll vote for the lesser of two/three/four evils. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate, not even among the Communists. ;p

I think Catholic energy, rather than being spent on condemning politicians and the out-of-wedlock people they represent, withholding sacraments, and trying to enforce law (or rather more accurately change the law) would better spend energy in making adoption more socially acceptable.

There is more than enough forgiveness to go around if they’d only accept it. As I said earlier, judgment is God’s to give. However, God has left rules for us to follow. If people don’t follow those rules, they should expect consequences for their actions. By the person’s sins, they ipso facto deny themselves Communion according to Church law. I can determine whether or not a person has sinned or not without ever condemning them to anything, or “throw stones at them” by simply identifying their sin.

Does the Church have a limited amount of energy, limited thus that denying Communion to politicians really takes away from promoting adoption? I never knew that going after politicians who claim to be Catholic and stray from Church teaching took away from advocating adoption. I thought both could be done at the same time and with the same fervor.

It’s sad. We still “stone” our women who have a child out of wedlock and they fear it. We just don’t stone them with “rocks”; we stone them with judgement.

Perhaps we live in different universes or something. I have never read an article or talked to a Catholic that promoted anything other than “love the sinner, hate the sin”. I thought we had established this already.

I’ll let you have the last word.

Stay in school; school is cool.

 

[S_Corda]

A friend brought these questions up last week.
I didn’t know just how to reply.

1. If President Reagan were Catholic, would he be denied the Eucharist? (President Reagan was divorced from his first wife and then remarried.)
2. I said I would not vote for a politician that is pro-abortion in any way. My friend reminded me that President Bush campaigned for Arnold Schwarzenegger (pro-abortion) instead of for the other CA Republican candidate who was pro-life.
   Any thoughts?