F
fix
Guest
I have checked and I will stick with the Church, as I always do. You may want to recheck what it is you really support.
Our posts are here for all to read.
- Status
Our posts are here for all to read.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Accusing me falsely, over and over, of supporting abortion does not make it so.
Similiarly, I have clearly stated that Bishop Burke acted within his authority (I even extensively cited sources to support that position). And I have noted that other Bishops can follow suit.
The two points of contention are, is it the lay faithful’s place to pass judgement on other Catholics and the Bishops that tend to their spiritual needs? Canon law, and the Catechism appear to say ‘no’.
Second, if we are going to scream that the Magesterium must enforce limits on the sacrement of Communion, we’d best take a close look at the limits spelled out, clearly, by our current Pope. That is, we might want to check if we live in a glass house before casting stones.
You seemingly disagree on both points. Fine, substantiate your point of view with something other than psuedo certainty and a penchant for making false claims about my stated beliefs.
F
fix
Guest
Glass houses…
Straw man.
And you accuse others of inflammatory language…
See above.
No one supports juding another’s consciece. No one supports screaming at the clergy. Why all the misdirection?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Wow, how very protestant of you. Your disdain for the clergy and the heirarchy of the Church is gigantic. You don’t need them it seems, and should be the one telling them what to do. I guess there is a very good reason you are not running the church.
But by all means, rant away. It changes zero of course, since you are not in a position of authority.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
And you continue to offer NO FACTS OR EVIDENCE of any kind, just attacks on character and argumentation, most of which as far as I can see are completely off the mark. You cannot win arguments by making fun of your opponent. It requires actual factual response, of which you have offered zero so far. Yet you claim to know the Church’s teachings and law. How funny.
F
fix
Guest
Protestant? Disdain for the clergy? Where is that coming from? I was pointing out Cardinal Arinze gave a great answer regarding communion and pro abort pols. If you think he is wrong and speaking contrary to Church teaching then admit it.Wow, how very protestant of you. Your disdain for the clergy and the heirarchy of the Church is gigantic. You don’t need them it seems, and should be the one telling them what to do. I guess there is a very good reason you are not running the church.
But by all means, rant away. It changes zero of course, since you are not in a position of authority.
F
fix
Guest
Which facts do you seek?
Start here :
I see plenty of misdirection from your side. If you reject canon law then explain why?
D
Drlit
Guest
EVERYBODY MUST MUST SEE GLENN BECK TONIGHT (MAY 8) on CNN HEADLINE NEWS!!!
There is a doctor on who believes that LIFE does not begin until AGE 2!!! And that it should be legal to kill your handicapped, physically deformed or ill child prior to that age!!!
It is what I have been saying for years, the ABORTION MENTALITY will ultimately lead to a general disrespect for life.
I read an article (in Utne Reader I think) where a guy said that a fetus is not protected by the Right to Life because it doesn’t have a birth certificate. Hence, a new-born child left in a dumpster isn’t a protected human either!!!
Now someone proposes to raise the age of “real life” to 2 YEARS!!!
Watch and learn!
There is a doctor on who believes that LIFE does not begin until AGE 2!!! And that it should be legal to kill your handicapped, physically deformed or ill child prior to that age!!!
It is what I have been saying for years, the ABORTION MENTALITY will ultimately lead to a general disrespect for life.
I read an article (in Utne Reader I think) where a guy said that a fetus is not protected by the Right to Life because it doesn’t have a birth certificate. Hence, a new-born child left in a dumpster isn’t a protected human either!!!
Now someone proposes to raise the age of “real life” to 2 YEARS!!!
Watch and learn!
S
SoCalRC
Guest
What an odd combination of sentences. Where, precisely, has Spiritmeadow rejected Canon Law in this thread?
Looking back over Spiritmeadow’s posts, it would seem that Canon Law has never been disputed, only the concept of mob application.
It is important to understand that Canon Law is not just a set of rules, it is an entire legal system, complete with courts and judges. There are legal degrees for it (JCL, JCB, and JCD). Generally, they require degrees both in secular law and theology as pre-requisites.
Second guessing judges and juries may be an American passtime, but it is particularly inappropriate with ecclesiastical law. This is because enforcers of the law do not just hold civil offices, but religious ones. So when you question a bishop’s decisions regarding Canon Law you are also questioning the bishop’s execution of his religious post in a divinely constructed heirarchy.
Further, unlike civil law, much of the process is confidential, because the objectives of the system are somewhat different. In Canon law, there is no debate about punitive vs. rehabilitation. Even the most severe penalties, like excommunication and witholding communion are supposed to be instructive and corrective to the individuals they are applied to.
So, we have a situation where you are proclaiming to know how to remotely apply a ‘law’ to another, when you cannot have full knowledge about the ‘evidence’, or even the current step in what is a legal and rehabilitative process.
As Spiritmeadow mentions, this is a typical Protestant point of view, since neither holy orders our the Church heirarchy is recognized. Also, the desire to identify and brand the ‘bad’ people is fairly puritanical (think ‘Scarlet A’), and a commonly perceived trait in extreme Evangelical Protestantism.
It is one thing for a Cardinal or Bishop to make a public assertion. They are proper ecclesiastical authority. Also, they may be speaking publicly for other purposes, such as the instruction of their own flock. But the lay members of the Body of the Faithful, which proclaims in unison its own unworthiness and humbly requests unity and peace, should probably, as Spiritmeadow noted, be focusing on our own sins. If we must focus on the sins of others, perhaps prayer, not calls for specific punishment, would be more appropriate.
F
fix
Guest
915 is not a punishment.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
The only US applications we have of CIC 915 in regards to politicians and stances on abortion have involved interdictions. That is, express declarations of a “penalty”.
Is semantic quibbling your deepest thought on the matter, or are you just compulsively responding out of emotional need?
S
SaintTrainee
Guest
One does not TAKE communion, they receive.
U
urban-hermit
Guest
You made no mention of the fact that you had completely misunderstood the essential point of your argument, that we were trying to judge the souls of others. I will assume that now you’ve got that straight.
Now your point seems to be that it is up to the priest/bishop to do the “interpretation and application”. This is a self-evident no-brainer with which I readily agree, with the understanding, of course, that laypeople who are EMHC’s will, of course, have to apply the canon and turn the communicant away under the proper circumstances.
U
urban-hermit
Guest
Has Rudy Giuliani been interdicted?
My brother, it’s a good idea to get your facts right before questioning the motivations of those who have repeatedly proven you wrong.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
I noticed that too but decided not to post as is the SOP for some to ridicule.
F
fix
Guest
The Church is not punishing as you and your friends would assert. I think you know that. Why the games?
F
fix
Guest
Thank you, but I fear logic is of little value in these discussions. They are agenda driven.
P
Prometheus1974
Guest
Having skimmed through the earlier posts; I agree that we are not to pass judgment on our fellow men, nor are we to usurp the position of the bishops of the pope in determining what is moral. I also agree that we do not know exactly what Jesus would do because we do not know Him perfectly, and also because we do not know the interior state of the prospective communicants’ hearts.
Having said this, I will now pass judgment. While I respect the bishops who have allowed publicly dissenting people to receive communion may have the authority to do so (which authority I respect) and may have good reason to do so, I certainly have the right to point out what I think may be an erroneous decision. I obey the law; I can still say I think some laws are applied poorly.
When people ask “What do you think Jesus would do” I get the feeling that what they really mean is “Jesus is a welcoming loving nice guy God who would never turn other people away so basically let people do what they want Jesus will take care of them anyway besides what business is it of yours?”
Of course, the first part is true. Jesus turns no one away.
However, I think the question of what Jesus would do is largely irrelevant. I think the real question to ask is: if Rudy Giuliani met Jesus, what would he do? Because that may be no business of mine, but it is definitely business of his.
The fact that Giuliani (or any other publicly and gravely dissenting Catholic - by the way that is not meant to be a judgment, simply a label for his/their public position) can reject a core Church teaching on abortion on one hand yet fully accept that he is accepting the Real Presence on the other seems to me to be a great contradiction. I would instead suspect that he is unaware of the tremendous gift Christ gives of himself in the Eucharist.
Perhaps to him it is an important tradition or way of life. Perhaps he is unsure of where he stands on the issue of abortion. Perhaps it is a useful political tool to be seen in Church. I hardly know.
But if he really believed that he was meeting Jesus, in person, mano a mano (mano a panno? sorry
) every Sunday, he could not continue to publicly support a grievously sinful and morally (and literally) fatal issue. Refusing communion might be essential for his very salvation, reminding him of his serious obligation to respect the Divine Person.
What would Jesus have done? Well, I seem to remember that he turned the moneylenders out of the Temple, rather violently. I seem to remember that he let the rich man, perfect in observance of the Law, go away because he could not let go of his wealth. Yes Jesus welcomes everyone, but he also confronts us with a choice. “Do you know who I am?”, “Are you willing to give up those things that will ultimately keep you from accepting My love?”
I don’t think that Jesus was angry because the moneylenders were sinful people (He ate with prostitutes, thieves and tax collectors). I think He was angry because they had become oblivious to their presence in the very house of God, and He needed to remind them sharply of that. The scandal was not their rejection of God or the Law. Their scandal was worse, a complacently that would make God and his Law appear irrelevant.
Refusing communion to Giuliani would not necessarily convince him to change his ways, nor would it make the Bishop popular. But it would remind the faithful not only of their obligation to accept central moral Church doctrines, but of the significance of receiving the Eucharist.
Giuliani, like all of us, has to face those tough choices and pick a side of the fence to sit on. Better for him to make a choice now, while he still has time to repent. If his choice would require him to.
Having said this, I will now pass judgment.
While I respect the bishops who have allowed publicly dissenting people to receive communion may have the authority to do so (which authority I respect) and may have good reason to do so, I certainly have the right to point out what I think may be an erroneous decision. I obey the law; I can still say I think some laws are applied poorly.When people ask “What do you think Jesus would do” I get the feeling that what they really mean is “Jesus is a welcoming loving nice guy God who would never turn other people away so basically let people do what they want Jesus will take care of them anyway besides what business is it of yours?”
Of course, the first part is true. Jesus turns no one away.
However, I think the question of what Jesus would do is largely irrelevant. I think the real question to ask is: if Rudy Giuliani met Jesus, what would he do? Because that may be no business of mine, but it is definitely business of his.
The fact that Giuliani (or any other publicly and gravely dissenting Catholic - by the way that is not meant to be a judgment, simply a label for his/their public position) can reject a core Church teaching on abortion on one hand yet fully accept that he is accepting the Real Presence on the other seems to me to be a great contradiction. I would instead suspect that he is unaware of the tremendous gift Christ gives of himself in the Eucharist.
Perhaps to him it is an important tradition or way of life. Perhaps he is unsure of where he stands on the issue of abortion. Perhaps it is a useful political tool to be seen in Church. I hardly know.
But if he really believed that he was meeting Jesus, in person, mano a mano (mano a panno? sorry
) every Sunday, he could not continue to publicly support a grievously sinful and morally (and literally) fatal issue. Refusing communion might be essential for his very salvation, reminding him of his serious obligation to respect the Divine Person.What would Jesus have done? Well, I seem to remember that he turned the moneylenders out of the Temple, rather violently. I seem to remember that he let the rich man, perfect in observance of the Law, go away because he could not let go of his wealth. Yes Jesus welcomes everyone, but he also confronts us with a choice. “Do you know who I am?”, “Are you willing to give up those things that will ultimately keep you from accepting My love?”
I don’t think that Jesus was angry because the moneylenders were sinful people (He ate with prostitutes, thieves and tax collectors). I think He was angry because they had become oblivious to their presence in the very house of God, and He needed to remind them sharply of that. The scandal was not their rejection of God or the Law. Their scandal was worse, a complacently that would make God and his Law appear irrelevant.
Refusing communion to Giuliani would not necessarily convince him to change his ways, nor would it make the Bishop popular. But it would remind the faithful not only of their obligation to accept central moral Church doctrines, but of the significance of receiving the Eucharist.
Giuliani, like all of us, has to face those tough choices and pick a side of the fence to sit on. Better for him to make a choice now, while he still has time to repent. If his choice would require him to.
- Status