A trip to the United States from Pope Benedict is still nearly six months away (April 2008), but the Los Angeles Times is already in a tizzy. An editorial in Wednesday's Times (11/14/07) advises the Pope to shun "hard-liners" and "conservative Catholics" and listen to "other Catholics." The Times is concerned with the issue of whether or not abortion-friendly politicians who claim they are Catholic should receive Holy Communion. As they so often do, the Times avoided the "liberal" tag for these "other Catholics":
When Benedict comes to the United States, he is likely to be importuned by conservative Catholics to side with the hard-liners. 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."
Do you believe this? The Times believes that when Catholic politicians support unfettered abortion, they are showing "their responsibility to their constituents [and] the Constitution." Good ... grief.
The Times also exhibits a glaring double standard in quoting President Kennedy about a "separation of church and state" and that "no Protestant minister [should] tell his parishioners for whom to vote." This past spring, as we reported in this post, candidate Barack Obama openly campaigned at First AME Church in South Los Angeles. "Obama danced and sang with the choir and the congregation prayed for him to become president," reported KTLA in Los Angeles. "[Stevie] Wonder was ushered onto the stage next to Obama, where he sang a song saying in part 'Barack Obama is going to be the next president,' as the congregation amened."
Yet there was not a single syllable of criticism or a cry from the Times about this. Meanwhile, the Times wants to advise the Pope and Catholics over "separation of church and state."
A double standard at the Times? Of course. It's ... not ... the ... first ... time.
(P.S. - I won't even get into the condescending headline of the Times's editorial: "Teaching the pope." The Times wants to teach the Pope? It's Pope Benedict who could teach the Times a few things!)
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Dave
November 14, 2007 - 22:58 ET byIn the end the Pope knows who to listen to and it isn't the LAT, conservative Catholics, hardliners, or other catholics. As to the Constitution doesn't the Pope have another older more authoratative document to adhere to?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
}}---> botg
November 14, 2007 - 23:32 ET by Cool ArrowWhich document would you be referring to? A Breviary?
botg wrote***As to the
November 15, 2007 - 02:24 ET by Keithbotg wrote***As to the Constitution doesn't the Pope have another older more authoratative document to adhere to?***
Too bad the Pope doesn't read the bible any better than liberals read the constitution! The pope causes catholics to BLASPHEME every time they address him or any other priest as "FATHER". And for the new agey NUTBAG "christians" ( the Jim Wallis crowd), that try to extricate the exact words of Christ from the REST of the bible and certainly from the teaching of His apostles, THIS quote was said by Jesus Himself.
Matthew 23:9 (King James Version)
9 AND CALL NO MAN YOU FATHER UPON THE EARTH : for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
What part of "no man" is fuzzy for his popiness? The Pope is a fraud, a fake, who has been LYING to people he is condemning to HELL. The Catholic church has told you that the pope is the MEDIATOR between GOD and MAN. God's "man on earth", if you will. Blasphemy most foul. This is a dastardly doctrine which takes proper glory away from Jesus Christ and bestows it upon an un-regenerated FAKE who was VOTED into the office, in violation of the biblical PROHIBITION against such things! MATTHIAS ANYONE? Well, my biblically uncaring and ILLITERATE friends the POPE is NOT the "mediator" between God and MaN.
1TIMOTHY 2: 5,6
5For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
The pope is an apostate fake who has turned his back on the true teaching of the apostles for the lies concocted by demons....yes you heard me right..DEMONS. This was all FORETOLD by the Apostle Paul to the Bishop Timothy, hey, maybe that's the reason they keep trying to "homo-up" Paul! Anyway, at a time when the only church doctrine being taught had people getting baptized in JESUS' NAME (contrary to the fake sprinkling in false TITLES that the Catholic church performs) and the ONLY WAY that the apostles recognized someone to have the Holy Spirit is if they spoke in tongues since that's what happened to each and every one of the apostles and disciples! Paul prophesied that after the death of the last apostle, evil PERVERSE men would arise from within the midst of the disciples, men who would seek to pervert the gospel of Christ. In the quote below, Paul continues the thought and tells you 1. how to recognize the fake church and 2. where their false doctrine comes from. You would do well to pay attention.
1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, GIVING HEED TO SEDUCING SPIRITS AND DOCTRINES OF DEVILS;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; ***( Which is why they can hide the priests that molest the children with nary a care! No conscience! It's been SEARED) ***
3FORBIDDING TO MARRY, AND COMMANDING TO ABSTAIN FROM MEATS, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. ***( priests and nuns are forbidden from marrying AND they forbid their congregations from eating meat on Friday.***
So NO, my friend the pope does NOT have "another older more authoratative document" that he adhere's to, though he should as should you all.
JOHN 3:1-8
Act 2:1-4, Acts 2:38 Acts 4:12 ACTS 19:1-6 and so on.
The Catholic response to the 'father' issue:
November 15, 2007 - 03:33 ET by Dave PierreCatholic Answers: "Call No Man 'Father'?"
Cheers.
You expect me to read all
November 15, 2007 - 04:12 ET by fitzfongYou expect me to read all that after having to sort through Keith's tortured, maniacal rant? No, thanks.
Well, maybe after I get some sleep. ;-)
here we go - let's get
November 15, 2007 - 12:51 ET by TruthMongerhere we go - let's get jews, muslims and mormon's into the mix too
satan knows how to party!
non-ELCA Lutherans who are not slightly progressive suck!!! Jesus only loves us:(
Thank you, Dave.
November 15, 2007 - 06:53 ET by motherbeltThank you, Dave.
So tell us..
November 15, 2007 - 03:43 ET by celatorSo, Keith, tell us how you really feel about the Pope and the Catholic faith. :+}
Calm Down
November 15, 2007 - 08:13 ET by planetrepublicanHey Keith, calm down, your "saved", relax...chill dude...and stop yelling, please...
What?
November 15, 2007 - 10:32 ET by maryerinYou've never read the Bible in context either! :)
You're reasoning would also restrict you from calling your own father 'father.' That is just ridiculous. In context, Jesus is clearly stating to not allow yourself to elevate a human being to the status of God. Catholics do not do that. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, successor to the Aspostle Peter, to whom Jesus said "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church!" Carrying on Jesus' ministry the way HE taught, 2007 years and strong.
Also, Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays during lent to honor Jesus' time of fasting in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights. Also,CHOOSING not to marry in order to live a chaste life devoted to Christ is not forcing someone not to marry. The Catholic Church believes in many types of vocations, Holy Orders, Marraige, and even the single life.
P.S. Love us or hate us, without us, you wouldn't even have a Bible to misread and try to poison our faith with.
ACK
November 15, 2007 - 11:49 ET by candanceP.S. Love us or hate us, without us, you wouldn't even have a Bible to misread and try to poison our faith with.
I'm not defending Keith for that rant of his because this is not the time or place for it, but as a Protestant myself, I feel like this jab is unfair. Let's not melt this down to a religious contest.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
}}---> Maryerin
November 15, 2007 - 11:58 ET by Cool ArrowWe've beaten that horse to death.
Let us not again get into the meanings of Friday fasting and "upon this rock"
Let's just agree to disagree.
Plant crops - not questions
except all muslims do suck
November 15, 2007 - 12:54 ET by TruthMongerexcept all muslims do suck - no damn "agreeing to disagree" there
}}---> Truthie
November 15, 2007 - 12:59 ET by Cool ArrowDon't include me into such a stupid statement.
Believe what you want about Muslims. But I think you're being disgusting.
definiton of a troll
November 15, 2007 - 13:20 ET by candancetrolling: Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding.
pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=trolling&i=53181,00.asp
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
trolls don't stick around
November 15, 2007 - 13:48 ET by TruthMongertrolls don't stick around for two years - like i have:)
toss another one at the wall and see if it sticks
i can wait another two years
truthmongering hurts i
November 15, 2007 - 13:47 ET by TruthMongertruthmongering hurts i know:)
Here's an idea then...
November 15, 2007 - 21:52 ET by maryerinIf you don't want me to defend my faith, don't force me too. This whole post was about how the liberal media believes that they can coerce the Pope into following their agenda, yet someone has to come on here and take yet another swing at the Catholic Church in particular the Pope. Other Catholics may be happy to let everyone slander their faith as they continue about their business. I refuse too. If you have something to say about my religion, why don't you read a book on the subject with the Imprimatur in it then get back to me.
As far a Catholics collecting, compiling, and preserving the Bible, that is historical fact. This is a site about facts isn't it?
Keith
November 16, 2007 - 20:31 ET bySo NO, my friend the pope does NOT have "another older more authoratative document" that he adhere's to, though he should as should you all.
Indeed should not we all? As in 1Peter 3:15 (note the KJV meakness and fear would be to us gentleness and respect)
15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
17For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Why stop with the Pope?
November 14, 2007 - 23:23 ET by nkviking75A future editorial: "When Jesus Christ returns in the near future, sources say he'll judge all the people of the world, separating 'sheep' from 'goats'. Jesus would be well advised to remember his own words: 'Judge not lest ye be judged.' The Times is committed to diversity, a virtue which belongs in heaven. We hope Jesus will reconsider his divisive attitude."
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
where no Catholic prelate
November 14, 2007 - 23:35 ET by MidAmericawhere 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."
But hillary wants women to vote for their gender. Will she be free of influence from radical feminists?
Obama wants blacks to support their race. Will he be free of influence of jesse jackson, louis farrakon and sharpton?
Edwards wants support of everyone who feels life isn't fair. Is he going to be free from influence of the trial lawyers and especially the ACLU?
}}---> au contraire, Prelate
November 14, 2007 - 23:41 ET by Cool ArrowWhen it so moves them, American bishops have openly declared they would withhold Communion from Presidential candidates.
The ignorance of the LA
November 14, 2007 - 23:38 ET by fitzfongThe ignorance of the LA Times is no longer remarkable. This paper has been a fraud sheet for some time now. As a Catholic, I'd simply tell the Times to piss off. Their editorial opinions are irrelevant. Funny, too, how they ignore that criminal Roger Mahoney enabling his priests to molest children...so long as he stays on the "correct" side of the illegal immigration debate.
just in case they hadn't noticed
November 15, 2007 - 00:26 ET by candance1) The Pope is German (as in not American) so American politics are pointless to him.
2) He's a very busy man and will not even notice the paper anyway.
3) It's not the Pope's job to play politics in the first place.
4) Giuliani is the only major Catholic in the race, and he's never been known to relent to the religious right.
5) If the Pope did want advice on whom to align with, it would not be asked of liberal media.
6) Churches are free to do whatever they want and can pass out communion as they see fit.
This is really a masked attempt to scold Catholics in general for being pro-life. "Don't let your churches be controlled by hardline crazies who think abortion is murder! And knock it off with all that holiness stuff!"
The next phase of "separation of church and state" will be "separation of church and citizens."
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
crazies who think abortion is murder
November 15, 2007 - 08:13 ET by ts88Well candance, call me crazy if you want, but abortion is murder. Pat
I think candance was being
November 15, 2007 - 11:05 ET by motherbeltI think candance was doing a "take-off" on what the Left would say...
sarc off
November 15, 2007 - 11:54 ET by candanceThat quote of mine was meant sarcastically. I was mocking the point of the LAT piece. I'm a Christian and about as pro-life as you can get.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
pro-life as you can get
November 15, 2007 - 13:34 ET by ts88Hi Candance, that's what I thought, but one never knows unless we ask. Its good to see were in the same boat.
I think the next flood it just around the corner. Pat
So now the LAT wants to
November 15, 2007 - 00:28 ET by rbosqueSo now the LAT wants to dictate dogma to the Church?
They should mind their own business.
Is the Pope Catholic?
November 15, 2007 - 01:08 ET by HG AbrahamsonAs usual LA Slimes is out to lunch. As the Pope has indicated, there are no conservative or liberal Catholics. There are only Catholics, who follow the teachings of the church (and the Pope) and non Catholics, like kennedy, joncary, belapelosi, et. al. who don't. The Pope will soon deny these folks Sacraments. Good for him. I would have more respect for these phonies if they would admit that the Catholic Church is no longer important to them, rather than to continue the lie to garner Catholic votes.
Difference of opinion is what makes a horse race.
Would the LA Times ever tell
November 15, 2007 - 01:12 ET by mostlymoderateWould the LA Times ever tell Orthodox Jews how to run their religion? How about Hindu's? Buddhists? Islamics or Muslims?
Nice ...
November 15, 2007 - 03:36 ET by Dave PierreExcellent point.
Maybe...
November 15, 2007 - 08:16 ET by planetrepublicanMaybe we Christians should join forces with the Muslims to scare the hell out of these secularists so they will just shut the f--k up! Just kidding....
sounds good to me:)
November 15, 2007 - 12:55 ET by TruthMongersounds good to me:)
Naked ideology
November 15, 2007 - 01:43 ET by KC MulvilleWe don't tell the pope what Catholicism should be. The pope's job is to be the final authority on what Catholicism is, and has been, for two thousand years. He gets to tell us.
What's hilarious is their own inability to see the irony in their advice. They're advising the pope to set religious policy based on a political concept. They're injecting politics into religion, which is precisely what they advise the pope to avoid. They contradict themselves, unintentionally. That's not sufficient evidence of their stupidity, but it certainly advances the case.
As it is, I'm uncomfortable with denying communion to someone based on their politics, but only because I believe that communion is a sacrament. It's sacred, and you don't "use" sacred things for other purposes. You can't exploit sacred things to make a point in an argument. But that's a religious position, not a political one. Popes are concerned with religion, not politics.
As it is, I'm
November 15, 2007 - 07:04 ET by motherbeltAs it is, I'm uncomfortable with denying communion to someone based on their politics,
I agree with you, and here's why:
When a person presents himself for Communion, it is between that person and God whether he is in a proper state. A priest cannot see into his soul. The priest should presume that it is so.
Even if the priest is operating on the premise that someone who supports abortion should not receive Communion, he has no way of knowing whether that person might have been to Reconciliation the day before and repented of it. So I think it is incumbent upon him to give the person the benefit of the doubt.
As far as I know, it is in no way a sin for a priest to presume that the person before him has presented himself in a proper state of grace and give him Communion.
}}---> Except, MB
November 15, 2007 - 07:11 ET by Cool ArrowI hope your comment doesn't also cover Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco presenting the Eucharist to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
I think that guy fumbled big time.
Plant crops - not questions
And he later admitted it
November 15, 2007 - 08:52 ET by KC MulvilleThe archbishop came out later and apologized for it.
I've distributed communion often. There are rules. The chief rule is that you don't give communion to a person if it would "cause public scandal." But that's a snap judgment you have to make in the span of two seconds, as each recipient presents themselves. I don't know about you, but I can't make scandal judgments in two seconds. When you distribute communion, you're also looking to make sure that people consume it immediately. Like an NFL referee, you have to make a call in a split second, and there ain't no instant replay.
In the archbishop's case, the ushers should have approached the "flamboyant sisters" and asked them to sit down. But it was a very human situation; I'm sure the ushers didn't want an altercation in the middle of a sacred time. That's why the real shame belongs on the protesters themselves.
I agree, KC, and after
November 15, 2007 - 10:56 ET by motherbeltI agree, KC, and after reading the Archbishop's apology, in which he stated that although they were oddly dressed (one of them wore a flowery hat and the other a garland), he didn't realize they were wearing mock religious garb. His spot judgment was to give Communion.
As I said in another reply, it is impossible, without being a mindreader, to actually KNOW a communicant's spiritual condition, so I would think giving the benefit of the doubt is a good option. Then the sin is on the person receiving the sacrament in what is not the proper preparation and spirit.
And you are absolutely right: the real shame is on the sham "Sisters." And yet no one is talking about them. This is what they do; they create these situations to embarrass the Catholic Church, and to see how many priests they can "catch." They win either way: either they create a scene, or they "get away with it", embarrassing the Church and the involved priest.
}}---> KC I disagree
November 15, 2007 - 10:43 ET by Cool ArrowFor just such a moment did the Archbishop study and pray his whole life that he might be able to stand up to those who mock the Lord.
This was no "wet behind the ears" priest.
To the same extent I believe Pat Robertson sold out his ministry built primarily on an antiabortion belief.
If it was a very "human situation" it was because the learned Archbishop failed to see an obvious battle against Powers and Principalities.
The protestors, if nonbelievers, could have been acting solely on the impulse of the flesh.
The Archbishop had plenty of time to make a conscious decision during the Mass celebration as well as during the procession to the front.
Plant crops - not questions
Cool Arrow, please read....
November 15, 2007 - 10:47 ET by motherbeltThe Archbishop had plenty of time to make a conscious decision during
the Mass celebration as well as during the procession to the front. Cool Arrow
Please read this article where the Archbishop explains what happened...he had no reason during the celebration to suspect that anything was going on.
}}---> Thanks, MB
November 15, 2007 - 11:13 ET by Cool ArrowBut I have to disagree. The full application of white face paint on both of the desecrateurs is obvious.
We're just going to have to disagree.
Plant crops - not questions
Interestingly enough...
November 15, 2007 - 22:47 ET by maryerinI will agree with Cool Arrow on this point. This is not the only time
the Archbishop fumbled. He also declined to comment when a stripper
dressed as Jesus was suspended in a cage in front of St. Joseph's
during the Folsom Street Fair. This was an event also attended by the
Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence one week before the Archbishop gave
them Communion! I guess the advertisement for the fair wasn't enough to peak the Archbishop's interest, you know the one, The Last Supper starring Sado-Masochists. Neither was the resulting boycott of Miller Beer lead by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. I think the Archbishop is obligated to know what is going on in his community. This was like the Titanic hitting the Iceburg, he just wasn't paying attention.
maryerin and cool }}}}}-------->
November 16, 2007 - 20:47 ET bythere is nothing new under the sun take this from Jude for example:
3(G)Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our (H)common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you (I)contend earnestly for (J)the faith which was once for all (K)handed down to (L)the saints.
4For certain persons have (M)crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand (N)marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn (O)the grace of our God into (P)licentiousness and (Q)deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
5Now I desire to (R)remind you, though (S)you know all things once for all, that [a]the Lord, (T)after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Humanity
November 15, 2007 - 11:36 ET by KC MulvilleWell, I'm willing to take the archbishop's explanation - he screwed up. I think we have to be practical. In my time in the Jesuits, I was required to be up on the altar for various functions. When you're up there, you're waiting for the next cue to move the ceremony along. You're trying to make sure that your wireless microphone doesn't go off. And, most of all, you're trying to focus on the sacramental and spiritual meaning of the ceremony. You're simply not focusing on anything else. So, while I agree it was a screwup, I don't think it means much.
I agree to a point...
November 15, 2007 - 07:32 ET by tater...if said politician did use the sacrament of Reconcilliation then the politician shouldn't be supporting abortion promoting bills or issues anymore. If they stay consistent on voting for abortion rights and a priest or bishop knows of this then they shouldn't give out communion.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
...and
November 15, 2007 - 07:44 ET by taterit is a mortal sin to further support abortion wheter you take someone to a clinic or vote for abortion rights. Receiving the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin is a mortal sin. If a priest is in full knowledge of a person doing this and still gives them communion then I believe the priest is committing another mortal sin by desecrating the Eucharist. Bishops that refuse to give politicans the Eucharist do this do it not for political reasons but for their own soul.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
If a priest is in full
November 15, 2007 - 10:28 ET by motherbeltIf a priest is in full knowledge of a person doing this and still gives
them communion then I believe the priest is committing another mortal
sin
Short of being a mindreader, there is NO WAY that a priest can know whether a person standing before him is in a state of mortal sin at that moment, and therefore must give the person the benefit of the doubt.
And how is the priest
November 15, 2007 - 10:42 ET by motherbelt...if said politician did use the sacrament of Reconcilliation then the
politician shouldn't be supporting abortion promoting bills or issues
anymore.
And how is the priest supposed to know if the recipient went to confession the night before, or perhaps earlier that day?
Besides, everyone that goes to confession has the intention of not repeating the sins, but we are human and we fail,so how can a priest decide the condition of another's soul when he is standing in front of him for Communion, on no basis but what he said in public a week ago?
My whole point is no one knows for sure, so I don't think a priest can be wrong in giving a communicant the benefit of the doubt.
Well...
November 15, 2007 - 11:26 ET by taterI think in MOST circumstances you are correct and if the priest doesn't know the person is in the state of mortal sin when giving out the Eucharist then the priest doesn't commit a sin as a mortal sin require a person to have full knowledge of the sin and still willing to do it.
...and if the politician knows how important receiving the Eucharist is the politician could tell the priest I know I supported abortion but realized my error and went to confession and am trying to change my ways for the better. To this point I haven't heard anything like that happening.
If a bishop refuses to give out communion because he knows a particular politician supports abortion and has not made it know that they've changed their ways then they should not give out communion to them. MB I agree with the majority of your statements but in the case of John Kerry the bishop was right (because Kerry never made it know he went to confession about it and informed the bishop)
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
tater, you don't go
November 15, 2007 - 13:43 ET by motherbelttater, you don't go avertising to the electorate at large that you have gone to confession. And you don't know that any politician hasn't gone to a priest and done what you suggested. And you won't, because these things are personal, between the person, his own personal confessor, and God.
That's why I'm saying I think a priest should give the benefit of the doubt to the communicant. It's not the right time to stand and have an inquisition. If the priest does his duty in good faith, it is the communicant who sins, not him.
Pelosi and Guiliani should receive Communion?
November 15, 2007 - 23:04 ET by maryerinI don't think so. Any Pro-Choice Politician is in a constant state of Mortal Sin. Your sins are not absolved in confession unless you are truly sorry for them and you are supposed to try not to commit them again. Unless they change their stance on Abortion, they aren't sorry for what they are doing, therefore that sin is never absolved.
}}---> Wrong Maryerin
November 15, 2007 - 23:22 ET by Cool ArrowThey can walk out of the confessional having made an imperfect act of contrition and still go to communion.
Even non Cath's know that.
Plant crops - not questions
contrition necessary for forgiveness
November 16, 2007 - 11:52 ET by mustangsally"perfect" contrition is motivated by love of God; "imperfect" would be a motivation of fear of punishment. Nevertheless, sorrow or contrition is necessary for forgiveness (along with purpose of amendment). If the politician is missing contrition (perfect or otherwise) and purpose of amendment, then there is no forgiveness...
When did abortion stop being religious?
November 15, 2007 - 12:31 ET by WingletDriver"As it is, I'm uncomfortable with denying communion to someone based on
their politics. . . ."
There is an assumption in your argument that abortion is only a political matter. Believe it or not, it is multidimensional. It is political, sociological and religious. The Church does not deny the communicant the Sacrament based upon their politics (e.g., pro- and anti-2nd amendment) but based upon their public refutation of Christian doctrine, which is a religious matter. Anybody who blatantly supports the wholesale, unlimited murder of children is quite objectively outside the Church.
And Christ, after his Resurrection, gave authority to his Apostles to loose and bind sins (John 20:21-23). This naturally extends to the administration of the Church (which nobody argues the Magisterium does perfectly). If pro-abortion Catholics don't like the way the Church is treating them, they have the political freedom to leave.
As for Protestant replies to what I have said: I am not trying to get into a debate about the authority and validity of the Catholic Church. This is a long and drawn out topic that is better left to other media. However, I would hope that most people would agree that the Catholic Church teaches that she is one and the same Church that was granted this authority by Christ. If you don't believe that (and very many people of good will do not), then you are not Catholic and maybe you should exercise your free will and profess what you really believe somewhere else. After all, I don't pretend to be a Democrat or a liberal or a nutroot whacko.
}}---> Well said winglet
November 15, 2007 - 12:37 ET by Cool ArrowI left the Catholicism for other reasons, but I'm still against abortion.
Plant crops - not questions
as a Prot
November 15, 2007 - 13:29 ET by candanceI'm not offended when Catholics talk about the validity of their clergy. As long there aren't any personal attacks or insults, we should feel free to talk about our own churches however we like.
Since I'm not Catholic, I don't know how much water my opinion holds, but I too find it strange that abortion has become a "political issue." To me, it's a life-and-death moral problem. I believe abortion is just as much murder as killing an adult, and I know my pastor would think twice about giving communion to a governmental officer who openly enabled it to happen.
It looks like Christians are losing their zeal over this issue and have becom complacent with it. Would we give communion to people who enabled slavery? If our government said it was okay to kill mentally retarded people, would the church let its members legislate that?
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
Candace...
November 15, 2007 - 13:38 ET by tater...as a Catholic I can say for me it is a life-and-death moral problem. It becomes a political issue when certain members of Congress say they are Catholic but go ahead and vote for bills that support abortion. Or when the ballot comes up and you have to choose between a pro-life or pro-choice candidate. It's a moral problem that can infulence politics.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
political issue
November 15, 2007 - 13:54 ET by candanceI know it has political facets, but we shouldn't dismiss it as an exclusively politcal issue. Like it or not, we all vote based on our conscience: liberals vote to protect their values and we vote to protect ours. That's the kinda the point of voting.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
With respect, I disagree
November 15, 2007 - 15:42 ET by KC MulvilleI agree with your general idea that abortion is not mere politics. I disagree that we should use a sacrament as a way of protesting the politician.
You can make a valid argument that a person's political position is inherently part of his moral state. Then, denying communion would be an indictment of the person's character, not merely their politics. Fair enough. But I don't think, especially in this case, that the general public will dance on the head of that pin. They'll immediately assume that you denied communion based on his or her politics. Maybe I'm wrong about that, who can say for sure? And, since I think that's how most people will interpret it, I'd rather not involve a sacrament in the whole thing.
If the priest gives a homily, points at the weaselly politician, and calls for brimstones against abortion supporters ... that wouldn't bother me so much. Might even make it worth staying awake for the homily. But using the actual Body of Christ to make the point? I don't like that at all. There are some things you just don't play around with. (And, this is from someone who is passionately against abortion, and who despises weaselly politicians who support it. I just don't like exploiting a sacrament.)
exploiting a sacrament
November 15, 2007 - 17:08 ET by candanceI don't see it as exploiting communion or using it as a political weapon. We don't refuse communion for raising taxes, believing in AGW, or pushing affirmative action. This is state-sponsored genocide, and pro-choice Christians like Giuliani express no internal struggle or religious ambiguity.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
You misunderstand the Church
November 15, 2007 - 17:14 ET by WingletDriver"I disagree that we should use a sacrament as a way of protesting the politician."
The Church is not protesting the politician. It is expressing something that is obvious: This person has chosen to remove himself from the Church by repeated public proclamation against Christian doctrine. The problem is the pro-abortion politician becomes a public scandal by open, repeated and seriously grave behavior. This is not to say that we are sinless (all have sinned). But we will all agree that there are objectively grave moral sins that are inherently obvious. To pretend that you are in union with the Church is the fault not of the Church, but the politician. It is not the Church who makes a political pronouncement, but the politician.
Furthermore, it is the charter of the Church to preach the truth in and out of season. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of its mission. Sometimes this means hurting people's feelings. If it didn't, we would have this multi-cultural, politically-correct gobbledygook we have in our universities, media and most other aspects of American life.
Lastly, the Church is not engaging in politics. They are exercising their rightful authority and executing their primary mission. The prohibition would apply to Giuliani, Christie Todd Whitman, Arnold Schwarzenegger as well as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. Sadly (and obviously), there are very few pro-life Catholic politicians in the US on either side of the aisle. That in itself is a scandal. When Rick Santorum pointed out that liberal enclaves that support abortion were the ones who were inundated with predator priests, he had a point. This rejection of Church authority and Christian teaching leads to a heckuva lot more than just wayward political views.
KC, the people who are "exploiting the sacrament" are pro-abortion politicians. If you choose not to be Catholic, you have that right. But to reject the Church and pretend to be in union with her is wrong.
All valid points
November 16, 2007 - 00:46 ET by KC MulvilleWell argued, WD. As we both know, quite a few bishops agree with you. The American bishops are in Baltimore right now, haggling over these same issues. Apparently they're going to leave the distribution rules to each local bishop, as it is now. Some will deny communion, some won't. Judgment call.
I just think that no matter what the reality is, the public is watching. (After all, this thread began because the news media decided to butt its politics into our religion. The public is watching.) The majority of people watching this are not Catholic, and they wouldn't see this as we do. If you would deny communion, would you also deny last rites? How about marriage? Would you refuse to baptize their children? All of a sudden, we could get into a hell of a mess. So, I'd rather protect sacraments from that controversy. I'd rather not get them involved in something that the general public is likely to misinterpret.
Frankly, if there are any reporters out there, this might be a good reason to interview your local bishop, and give him a chance to explain his own position. I'd love to hear what they say. If nothing else, that would certainly be more interesting to me than where Britney Spears partied yesterday.
Liberation Theologists
November 15, 2007 - 06:11 ET by jpm100Liberation Theologists were, imho, pro-communist advocates working from within the Church in the 80's. They pretty much disappeared when the Soviet Union disappeared.
But they didn't go away. I believe they seeded themselves into other issues and are deliberately trying to pull the Church into being another tool for the Left.
The most-loved Pope in my lifetime
November 15, 2007 - 06:16 ET by sarcasmoDidn't feel much need to listen to the media & politicians, left or right.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> Beloved Pope
November 15, 2007 - 06:27 ET by Cool ArrowWould that be Pope Paul?
Sorry, couldn't help it.
Plant crops - not questions
Nope
November 15, 2007 - 06:39 ET by sarcasmoBut I can see how the left or right might want to change the subject! :)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> You forget sarc?
November 15, 2007 - 06:55 ET by Cool ArrowThis isn't the first time you've linked to the same Ron Paul/John Paul link.
I read that link several weeks ago when you put it up.
Lighten up. it was a dig. It wasn't a slam.
Plant crops - not questions
I never said it was!
November 15, 2007 - 07:09 ET by sarcasmoI just like how that piece reads, because it says, politely, what I've said too-rudely for years. Politicians -- left and right -- want to talk a good game about God, but they tend to worship big-government when you "follow the money." Any good journalist, or journalist critic like me, follows the money no-matter where it leads.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
gotta love sarc
November 15, 2007 - 12:02 ET by candanceAn innocent discussion about a moral issue within the Catholic church...and still all sarc sees is big-government Republicans running everything.
Could you go an entire thread without injecting Ron Paul's campaign?
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
Not running, ruining.
November 15, 2007 - 13:38 ET by sarcasmoAnd I'll say what I want, which in this case like it or not was on-topic. Go read it if you doubt me.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Thank Goodness...
November 15, 2007 - 06:22 ET by tater...the LAT knows more than the leader of the Catholic Church (/sarc). You know the Pope who has the Holy Spirit to guide what issues of dogma are morally right and wrong. The same Holy Spirit who has been guiding Popes since Jesus ascended into heaven. The same Holy Spirit who proclaims the truth. I'd hate to think who's guiding the LAT.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns