US Bishops Set to Tell Catholics Opposed to Teaching on Abortion or Homosexuality not

[MikeinSD]

MikeinSD stated:
***In fact,why aren’t “Catholics” who use the pill are not banned from the sacraments in every US parish?

---

Now I am quite sure the average Catholic Jane (and yes of course we are speaking of women) is not going shout from the rooftops that she is on the pill. Mike wanted to know “why aren’t “Catholics” who use the pill banned from the sacraments in every US parish?”

My question to him, was “how are the Bishops going to know?”

It is common sense to understand if the women make it “known”, then viola!

Again…the way the question is worded, I am asking “how will the Bishops know”?

These are the questions the Bishops will have to answer if/when they condemn a (presumably) Catholic Democrat politician for supporting homosexuality, abortion and birth control (and I pointed out many regard use of birth control pills as the equal to abortion). Any politician would likely respond to such condemnation by pointing out Catholic Americans use birth control and undergo abortion at roughly the same rate as non-Catholic Americans.

 

[MikeinSD]

The Bishops will also have to answer questions as whether a Catholic politician who took an oath of office should defer to his or her religion rather than the rule of law. The example the media will no doubt seize is how a Catholic politician can support the sale of birth control bills which are nothing more than chemical abortions.

Obviously, Catholic politicians would be obligated to pass laws to criminalize possession of these chemical abortion drugs – despite the wishes of the majority of voters.The Bishops can of course deny the sacraments to politicians who continue to permit the sale and distribution of birth control pills.

Be interesting to watch how this plays out.

 

[estesbob]

These are the questions the Bishops will have to answer if/when they condemn a (presumably) Catholic Democrat politician for supporting homosexuality, abortion and birth control (and I pointed out many regard use of birth control pills as the equal to abortion). Any politician would likely respond to such condemnation by pointing out Catholic Americans use birth control and undergo abortion at roughly the same rate as non-Catholic Americans.

So a Catholic politican will defend himself by pointing out that Catholics sin?

 

[a_cermak]

This issue, the threat of my private expression of religion becoming a public spectacle, was why I became an Episcopalian and will remain one. The Episcopal Church may have issues, but it does not try to use the Sacraments as leverage to get me to vote their agenda.

 

[Julianna]

The Bishops will also have to answer questions as whether a Catholic politician who took an oath of office should defer to his or her religion rather than the rule of law. The example the media will no doubt seize is how a Catholic politician can support the sale of birth control bills which are nothing more than chemical abortions.

Obviously, Catholic politicians would be obligated to pass laws to criminalize possession of these chemical abortion drugs – despite the wishes of the majority of voters.The Bishops can of course deny the sacraments to politicians who continue to permit the sale and distribution of birth control pills.

Be interesting to watch how this plays out.

Maybe a Catholic politican can “try” to pass laws to criminalize possession of birth control pills…I say “try” because his/her constituants are not ALL Catholics…DUH! A politician is there to represent the “people”, not a religion. The Bishops can deny the sacraments to politicians who continue to permit the sale and distribution of birth control pills…yep, they sure can…which may backfire on those who are Catholic wanting to run for public office. You have to remember who an elected official represents… so that idea is out the window. And who is going to bring up a law that reads “Let’s pass laws to criminalize birth control pills”…let’s see now, women take the pill, so women will be “arrested” and put in jail… and the men…what about them? Oh, yeah…they are men, silly me, what was I thinking.

This is America…lest you forget. If you want a country run by religion…Iran has plenty of room. Burka, anyone?

The suffregettes must be rolling over in their graves. Where did I put my high heels and pearls?

 

[MikeinSD]

So a Catholic politican will defend himself by pointing out that Catholics sin?

Which is more important, a politican’s oath to her/his office or her/his obligation to her/his faith? Let me know.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

What if one is opposed to homosexual behavior but feels there is nothing disordered in the orientation? Are we also forbidden to receive the Eucharist? Certainly there is a difference in opinion but no mortal sin involved. This is the compromise I have been trying to live in my life. I can’t afford those highfalutin psychologists who say you can change orientation and then proceed to accept no insurance for treatment. So I have had to resign myself to living with the orientation and being pleased with myself by not acting out.

goofyjim:

The Teaching of the Church is that it’s the ACTIVITY not the ORIENTATION that’s disordered. The orientation can always be dealt with in the same manner we unmarried heterosexuals are supposed to deal with our urges - CHASTITY.

In your case, the Teaching of the Church that matters is the Moral Teaching that says you may not engage in any sexual activity outside of marriage or dwell on it in your mind. Same as the moral teaching for Unmarried Heterosexuals.

It’s just that, in your case, marriage is out of the question unless God chooses to change your orientation. “Those highfalutin psychologists who say you can change orientation and then proceed to accept no insurance for treatment,” can’t do any more than that.

I would say to work with a Spiritual Director and a Confessor, get the support of like minded Catholics (and possibly of Catholics who have the sinful tendency you do) and to pray for the help of the Holy Spirit and the Grace of God.

And, Unless you commit a mortal sin, continue to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord as Frequently as possible - You need it.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[rlg94086]

Hi Mike,

That’s an easy one…his faith, of course.

Robert

Which is more important, a politican’s oath to her/his office or her/his obligation to her/his faith? Let me know.

 

[MikeinSD]

Hi Mike,

That’s an easy one…his faith, of course.

Robert

Hi Robert:

No problem. As long as you remember not all politicians (or Americans) as Catholic. And some faiths are not very friendly to the Catholic church (or Catholic voters). Their believers are also entitled put their faiths’ teachings first in politics. Is that the kind of country you want to live in?

Mike

 

[Jeanette_L]

Hi Robert:

No problem. As long as you remember not all politicians (or Americans) as Catholic. And some faiths are not very friendly to the Catholic church (or Catholic voters). Their believers are also entitled put their faiths’ teachings first in politics. Is that the kind of country you want to live in?

Mike

If a politician is honest about where he/she stands, then the voters will decide whether this is someone whose values represent their own. That is what democracy is about.

The problem is Catholics trying to gain votes because of their Catholic faith and then not voting according to that faith. This is dishonest. And it is a scandal to Catholicism. If they don’t feel they can remain truly Catholic and be a politician, then the choice should be clear. But they can, they are just muddying the waters by claiming otherwise.

A Pro-Choice candidate should run as such, and be clear about it, but they shouldn’t claim to be Catholic in the process, as clearly they are not in agreement with the Church and are in a sense ex-communicating themselves already. A Pro-Life candidate should run as such and be clear about it. There is nothing wrong with a candidate stating that he/she will never support any legislation that doesn’t support/respect the right to life of every human person from conception to natural death. Let the voters then decide between these two positions. And then the winners need to represent accordingly, live up to their word. This is what democracy is about.

If we are afraid of other faiths eventually ruling in a way that is not consistant with our own, then our problem ultimately is with democracy, not with the Catholic Bishops and their God given Church leadership roles and what that entails.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Which is more important, a politican’s oath to her/his office or her/his obligation to her/his faith? Let me know.

Mike:

The obligation isn’t “to their faith”. It’s to God the Father who created and sustains them, to the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave his life for them as a Sacrifice and redeemed them with his blood, and to the Holy Spirit who gives them new Life in Christ Jesus and the Gifts of the Spirit so they can live the lives of Faith in Christ Jesus.

Wouldn’t you think they’d owe something in return?

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Guaranteed, “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv

Where does the baby receive due process during the process of being killed during an Abortion? Where did the Supreme Court give the babies who ended up being slaughtered in Abortions due process during Roe Wade and it’s follow ups?

The Declaration of Independence said:

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.*

wfu.edu/~zulick/340/Declaration.html

If a government is instituted to preserve the right to life, how can a legislator be true to his oath when he supports legislation which would take away the lives of the people the government is supposed to protect?

At the same time, Natural Law and the Teaching of the Church are both Clear as to the OBJECTIVE REALITY of Abortion. That doesn’t change because you or others might think that it isn’t the deliberate killing of innocent human beings. It didn’t become “NOT murder” when the Supreme Court decided Roe v, Wade or when the Justices wrongly decided its follow-ups.

The only question is will Catholic legislators stand for the truth? or, Will they do as they’ve been doing for the last 30 years and stand for convenience?

Those who do the former should be commended as many are Democrats and will have to pay a personal and political price for the stand.

Those who do the later should be reminded that they hadve done wrong in the site of God and they they need to fear God more than they fear man.

I have a Fatwa against me. Every day I have to decide who I fear more - The one who placed the Fatwa against me or the Lord who has the right to demand my life as a price for my redemption. “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matt. 10:28 RSV

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Jeffrey]

Biggest what? BTW… he’s a gov. No I didn’t vote for him.

Don’t forget the biggest one: Schwarzenegger.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

This issue, the threat of my private expression of religion becoming a public spectacle, was why I became an Episcopalian and will remain one. The Episcopal Church may have issues, but it does not try to use the Sacraments as leverage to get me to vote their agenda.

a_cermak:

The “Agenda” is an attempt to save the Innocent from those who, like Herold and those soldiers he sent in the middle of the night, would slaughter them without cause and with premeditation and malice aforethought. Natural Law, the Church Fathers and the Sacred Scriptures are all unanimous in that the baby in uturo is a human being created in the very image and icon of God deserving of the same legal protections as you and I.

I beg you to look at what the bishops of The Episcopal Church have done to those parishes which asked for “Alternative Episcopal Oversight” as they were supposed to allow under the “Compromise Agreement” of the Lambeth Conference of 2003. And, Then ask if hauling these parishes and threatening their vestries with losing their homes didn’t create far more of a public spectacle and scandal than informing a “Catholic” politician that he’s about to commit sacrilege and endanger his soul could ever cause.

And, Please ask about the scandal of not teaching or not insisting that Catholics follow and not publicly oppose the clear teaching of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Tradition of the Fathers and of Rational Reason.

I’m sure you’ll figure out that the Church had no choice but to insist that the politicians stand up for their faith and their God and that they repudiate the falshood they’ve represented.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Biggest what? BTW… he’s a gov. No I didn’t vote for him.

Jeffrey:

In CA, we don’t have much choice, we have Schartzenegger, who will at least veto Gay Marriage and vetoed a bill requing insurers to pay for Abortions (per Angelides Website SB 1555), v. Phil Angelides is is completely Pro Death (He would sign SB 1555 and opposes perental notification) and Pro-Gay Marriage.

One of these two will win in this state. Please see the Catholic answers Voters Guide about Limiting Evil and that will help you make your choice.

I wish there was a Pro-Choice candidate on the ballot, but we had that chance 4 years ago, and we screwed it up when we chose someone who was unelectable and ended up reelecting Gray Davis.

Arnold is is hardly Pro-Life, but Angelides makes him look like a “Pro-Life Warrior”.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Jeffrey]

Looking more and more like I’m gonna have to vote for Arnie. Unless a viable third party comes along… HA! Yea right.

Got some research to do.

Jeffrey:

In CA, we don’t have much choice, we have Schartzenegger, who will at least veto Gay Marriage and vetoed a bill requing insurers to pay for Abortions (per Angelides Website SB 1555), v. Phil Angelides is is completely Pro Death (He would sign SB 1555 and opposes perental notification) and Pro-Gay Marriage.

One of these two will win in this state. Please see the Catholic answers Voters Guide about Limiting Evil and that will help you make your choice.

I wish there was a Pro-Choice candidate on the ballot, but we had that chance 4 years ago, and we screwed it up when we chose someone who was unelectable and ended up reelecting Gray Davis.

Arnold is is hardly Pro-Life, but Angelides makes him look like a “Pro-Life Warrior”.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Holly3278]

I fully and strongly support what the bishops are doing!

 

[fix]

Maybe a Catholic politican can “try” to pass laws to criminalize possession of birth control pills…I say “try” because his/her constituants are not ALL Catholics…DUH! A politician is there to represent the “people”, not a religion. The Bishops can deny the sacraments to politicians who continue to permit the sale and distribution of birth control pills…yep, they sure can…which may backfire on those who are Catholic wanting to run for public office. You have to remember who an elected official represents… so that idea is out the window. And who is going to bring up a law that reads “Let’s pass laws to criminalize birth control pills”…let’s see now, women take the pill, so women will be “arrested” and put in jail… and the men…what about them? Oh, yeah…they are men, silly me, what was I thinking.

I would mention a few things:

1. Contraceptive sex is known to be wrong from the natural law. It binds everyone not just Catholics. These issues like abortion, homosexual relations and such are not just Catholic “rules” like no meat on Good Friday.
2. Whether every single serious violation of the moral law should be criminalized seems to be a legitimate debate. Would enforcing such criminal acts bring about more evil than the act itself? I am sure others here can answer that better than I can.
3. Politicians do represent more than just folks of their own faith, but that does not mean the moral law may be ignored because other folks do not grasp the wrongness of certain actions. Should chattel slavery be supported by a politician because some folks he represents are in favor of it?

This is America…lest you forget. If you want a country run by religion…Iran has plenty of room. Burka, anyone?

The suffregettes must be rolling over in their graves. Where did I put my high heels and pearls?

I offer this:

…“I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law.”(5) If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society…
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/l...ments/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html
LIBERTAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE NATURE OF
HUMAN LIBERTY

 

[rlg94086]

Absolutely. It is the kind of country we are in. We are to vote our conscience, and our conscience is supposed to be formed by our faith. As long as the legislation is in line with the Constitution, we are okay. You do realize that we already have to live under rules set in place by people of other moral values than our own? Legislators have put laws in place based on their own faith teachings or lack thereof and/or personal beliefs…it has always been the way.

Btw…it is slightly different for judges than legislators. What I mean is that a judge in his job has to look at the law and adjudicate appropriately. IOW…while his faith forms his conscience, he is not supposed to change the law, rather he should judge it on its merits.

Hi Robert:

No problem. As long as you remember not all politicians (or Americans) as Catholic. And some faiths are not very friendly to the Catholic church (or Catholic voters). Their believers are also entitled put their faiths’ teachings first in politics. Is that the kind of country you want to live in?

Mike

 

[a_cermak]

a_cermak:

The “Agenda” is an attempt to save the Innocent from those who, like Herold and those soldiers he sent in the middle of the night, would slaughter them without cause and with premeditation and malice aforethought. Natural Law, the Church Fathers and the Sacred Scriptures are all unanimous in that the baby in uturo is a human being created in the very image and icon of God deserving of the same legal protections as you and I.

I beg you to look at what the bishops of The Episcopal Church have done to those parishes which asked for “Alternative Episcopal Oversight” as they were supposed to allow under the “Compromise Agreement” of the Lambeth Conference of 2003. And, Then ask if hauling these parishes and threatening their vestries with losing their homes didn’t create far more of a public spectacle and scandal than informing a “Catholic” politician that he’s about to commit sacrilege and endanger his soul could ever cause.

And, Please ask about the scandal of not teaching or not insisting that Catholics follow and not publicly oppose the clear teaching of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Tradition of the Fathers and of Rational Reason.

I’m sure you’ll figure out that the Church had no choice but to insist that the politicians stand up for their faith and their God and that they repudiate the falshood they’ve represented.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

I don’t support the slaughter of the Innocents. But I believe I can trust women to make their own decisions. I will not decide that I am smarter or wiser than the woman who chooses this option. Have I experienced what she has? Do I face the same struggles she does? At the heart of the abortion struggle, I frequently see the grim visage of paternalism peaking through on the Pro-Life side. No not all pro-lifers, but some definitely.

As far as the intra-Church struggles, that’s always been part of denominations. Look at how the Waldenses were dealt with. Heck, the Episcopal Church completely fractured during the American Civil War. And while I see difficulties with the way the Establishment has handled matters in TEC, I also see an awful lot of ill-will on the other side as well, to the point where they would choose not to accept a Primate chosen by a legitimate election by the HoD and HoB. Also, at least this in-fighting is only Church on Church, it is not affecting the state. I am only a member of TEC, not a vestry men or cleric, so the intra-Church warfare really doesn’t affect me.

I am a politician, and I have an obligation to my constituents to represent them. That is the job of a politician and it is bound by law not morals. The Church only has a right to set the agenda for government, if it can work through its members to influence the duly elected representatives. So, if the Catholic Church wants to inact its agenda, perhaps it should seek more converts to its agenda.

I don’t know how useful this is going to be anyway. It might trip up the older Catholic pols, but most younger ones I know are avoiding any reference to their Catholicism publicly lest they get caught up in this situation. Not very many of them have missed the importance of the Kerry situation. Some have taken the road I took (to various denoms) and some haven’t been in Church since they were confirmed anyway.

 

[estesbob]

Hi Robert:

No problem. As long as you remember not all politicians (or Americans) as Catholic. And some faiths are not very friendly to the Catholic church (or Catholic voters). Their believers are also entitled put their faiths’ teachings first in politics. Is that the kind of country you want to live in?

Mike

Yes.