If you ask the average man on the street, regardless of his religion, he'd probably tell you that anyone who would disrupt an Easter Mass with a political protest -- complete with stage blood and attempted "die-in" -- is a jerk with little if any reverence for God or the sanctity of a church as a place of worship.
But according to the Chicago Tribune's Manya Brachear the so-called Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War are representative of a "frustrated faction" of Catholic faithful (emphasis mine):
Cardinal Francis George has long opposed politics at the communion rail. But Sunday’s anti-war protest at the start of his Easter homily spotlighted a frustrated faction in the Roman Catholic church who believe committed Catholics must do more than preach and pray for peace.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Chicago police charged six young protesters Sunday with felony criminal defacement of property and two counts of simple battery for spattering parishioners’ clothes with sticky red stage blood. Five of the protesters are being held in lieu of $25,000 bail. The sixth, who served time in prison for illegally entering a U.S. military installation, received $35,000 bail.
For her March 24 The Seeker blog post, Brachear found two liberal activists, one who disagreed with disrupting a Mass to convey a political point and the other who accepted in theory that such a protest could in some cases be proper:
Dan Daley, a founding member of Call to Action, a Chicago-based Catholic activist group, said that while calls for social justice are important, they must be carefully considered when they disrupt the worship experience.
"Peace and justice is part of what we believe. We always need to be challenging each other in the church to do more," Daley said. "[Where] very much depends on the individual situation and who they hope to communicate with."
Brachear closed her blog post by putting a question to her readers to answer in the comments field:
What do you think? Does political protest belong in the cathedral?
The better question to ask might be, "Would the Chicago Tribune have been this dispassionate if the worship service so rudely interrupted was a prayer service at a mosque and the misguided protesters were conservatives calling on moderate imams to condemn radical Islamic terrorism?"
On second thought, that's a dumb question. We know the answer.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Maybe we, as a "frustrated
March 25, 2008 - 11:24 ET by ThisnThatMaybe we, as a "frustrated faction of journalistic integrity" should rush into the ChiTrib editorial offices and throw ink all over them, protesting their editorial policies. Wonder if ChiTrib would be sympathetic?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Looking forward to this
March 25, 2008 - 11:34 ET by fitzfongLooking forward to this human debris becoming a "Frustrated Faction" of the prison system.
Amen!
March 25, 2008 - 11:40 ET by heldmywIt is my sincere hope that whoever the judge is, he or she drops the hammer on them with all the might the law will allow.
The time to yank these nitwits up is now. The First Amendment does not excuse this sort of behavior.
These people aren't Catholics.
March 25, 2008 - 11:37 ET by Missouri ConservativeThese people aren't Catholics. Leftist anti-war protesters like these hate the Catholic church as much, if not MORE, than the war in Iraq.
"women and minorities hardest hit"
Yeah, I personally doubt
March 25, 2008 - 11:44 ET by Ken ShepherdYeah, I personally doubt these protesters are devout Catholics. Seems to me they wouldn't pull a stunt like this if they were. You can picket outside the bishop's residence or offices. But this was all about pulling a stunt that made headlines, even if it scared kids and made an elderly usher break down in tears.
This is why I've always
March 25, 2008 - 11:51 ET by ThisnThatThis is why I've always said "bring your guns to church".
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Absolutely! No truly
March 25, 2008 - 12:03 ET by motherbeltAbsolutely! No truly devout Catholic would so disrespect a church during Mass that way.
As you said, Ken, there are any number of other ways to make their point. This was shameful.
For more info on this group of "devout" Catholics, take a look at this calendar of their "upcoming events" including an LGBT-friendly trip to Italy, The Coming Democratization of the Catholic
Church and the 15th World Day of Prayer for Women’s
Ordination.
They'd be more at home with
March 25, 2008 - 12:12 ET by Ken ShepherdThey'd be more at home with the United Church of Christ or the Episcopal Church USA.
Here is another group
March 25, 2008 - 13:28 ET by mvfreemanof catholics against the war.
http://catholicsforanend.org/news-cns-20070713.php
And maybe you don't remember but the Vatican was emphatically against the invasion of Iraq.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html
So it's hardly suprising that some parishioners would feel the same way.
Don't change the
March 25, 2008 - 14:28 ET by motherbeltDon't change the premise.
Nobody is saying they can't be against this war or any other. The Pope did condemn the invasion. He didn't do it by creating a spectacle in the middle of a Mass.
I'm sick and tired of people who, just because they believe their cause is "righteous" grant themselves the right to disrupt whatever they please, regardless of the feelings of others. It is the height of arrogance to imagine that their protest is more important than the Mass and all the people there to celebrate it.
This was a completely shameless and class-less exhibition.
They need to find another venue in which to vent their frustration.
Period.
I agree.
March 25, 2008 - 14:29 ET by mvfreemanBut the consensus opinion here is that these people can't really be catholic.
I'm just saying being catholic and being an a**hole aren't mutually exclusive.
First off....
March 25, 2008 - 16:28 ET by Missouri Conservative...did you glance at the group that did this protest? It was an umbrella leftist organization that included among other groups the "Communist Party of Illinois".
Second, yes, there ARE many Catholics who opposed the war in the beginning, including the Pope. I don't know if the Pope is now calling for a precipitous withdrawl.
Third, if these are in fact Catholic anti-war protesters, why would they protest in a church, who after all, as you said, officially had an ANTI-WAR position? Do they think the attendees of that church are pro-war for some reason? Why not conduct a typical protest? Why did they choose to protest inside a church?
"women and minorities hardest hit"
Surely you have come to
March 25, 2008 - 16:49 ET by mvfreemanSurely you have come to realize that most liberal anti-war protesters are attention whores of the highest order. Being catholic apparently doesn't change that.
Obviously, there are a lot
March 25, 2008 - 17:25 ET by JoeBobObviously, there are a lot of things for which they and being an a**hole aren't mutually exclusive.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
The Pope did not condemn the invasion
March 25, 2008 - 17:43 ET by WingletDrivermotherbelt,
Do you have a citation for either JPII or BXVI actually "condemning" the US led invasion of Iraq? In all honesty, I have yet to see anything that either of them said (JPII being the more important one since he was pope at the time) that could be construed as condemnation.
JPII did say something akin to, "When man resorts to war all mankind loses" and urged us to pray for a peaceful solution in Iraq. When Pio Cardinal Laghi shot his mouth off to the press after a meeting with Pres Bush in March 2003 he was given a position in a library far away from any microphone and a similar fate befell every "Vatican official" who did likewise. A very good article on what the pope said is here (http://www.firstthin...). Sorry the little link thingy didn't work on my computer.
My point is, despite what the MSM has said about the pope's views on Iraq, they have been unable to back them up. Even more to the point, the decision whether a war is just does not lie with the Vatican, the Church or the Pope. It lies with the legitimate political authority of the country. Certainly the political authority can err in judgement, but this charism still does not lie with the pope. And JPII was smart enough to know that (even if some of the curia ignored it).
Vatican Strongly Opposes
March 25, 2008 - 19:50 ET by motherbeltVatican Strongly Opposes Invasion
I know, you will say it's not accurate. That may be. I'm not going to get into a discussion of that. That wasn't the main point of the discussion.
I was responding to mvfreeman, who seemed to be arguing that if the Pope was against the war, it was expected that some Catholics would be too. My point was that, even if these people thought they were following the Pope's lead in condemning the war, that didn't get them the right to disrupt a Mass.
I'm not going to be drawn into a new discussion of who said what, and just war theory etc. That's not what this was about. I was talking about the shameful behavior of the protestors.
You're right that it's a bit off topic
March 25, 2008 - 20:13 ET by WingletDriverbut it drives me nuts that folks just acquiesce the point that JPII "condemned" the liberation of Iraq.
But if it is off topic, it really is only a very little bit off. These loons desecrate Mass with the excuse that somehow Cardinal George and the Catholic Church at large are complicit in some sort of conspiratorial sin by not being more vocally opposed to the war.
My points were:
1) The pope certainly did not condemn the Iraq invasion. Reading mvfreeman's link to foxnews.com is revealing not from what the Pope said but from the conspicuous absence of any condemnation from the Vatican.
2) Regardless of what Pope JPII said about the invasion (or for that matter, the numerous members of the Curia who overstepped their authority), the prudential decision to wage war still lies exclusively with the legitimate political authority of the country.
These points are germane to the overall discussion because the underlying assumption that these folks are somehow a "faction" of the Catholic Church because they support the pope or Vatican on this single non-doctrinal issue doesn't withstand even light scrutiny. And rather than conceding that the pope and the Vatican were "emphatically against" the war, I choose to correct that blatant error.
From your linked story
March 25, 2008 - 20:20 ET by WingletDriverwhere is the money quote from the pope condemning the war?
btw, Cardinal Tauran, who was the Vatican's Foreign Minister and who did make a strong anti-US statement in that article, was removed from that office and made an archivist shortly after those comments. Just like Cardinal Lahgi was put in a nice quiet place after he shot his mouth off.
That wasn't my choice of
March 25, 2008 - 21:16 ET by motherbeltThat wasn't my choice of story: mvfreeman used it as an explanation that the protesters had something in common with the Pope. I didn't care to look for something else, but I think this would serve:
John Paul has insisted that war is a "defeat for humanity" and that a preventive strike against Iraq is neither legally nor morally justified. (emphasis added)
I'd say calling it neither legally nor morally justified is a condemnation.
And my point was that even if the Pope did condemn it, that didn't give the protesters the right to disrupt a Mass and ruin everyone else's celebration of Easter.
One problem with your quote:
March 26, 2008 - 05:28 ET by WingletDriverDid you notice the distinct lack of quotation marks? That is, by definition, not a quote.
are you being deliberately ignorant?
March 26, 2008 - 12:19 ET by mvfreemanAs motherbelt already told you it is well documented that the vatican opposed the war.
Here is the speech from John Paul II from 2003:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2003/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20030113_diplomatic-corps_en.html
Money quote: ""NO TO WAR"! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity" and "And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than twelve years of embargo? War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations."
And U.S. catholic bishops sent president Bush a letter saying any invasion would not be a "just war".:
http://www.catholicherald.com/cns/iraq-us.htm
And some more comments:
http://www.cathnews.com/news/303/124.php
Apparently you're illiterate
March 26, 2008 - 16:54 ET by WingletDriverbecause the final sentence in that paragraph makes it obvious that war is still a legitimate means:
". . .war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations."
This is actually a restatement of just war theology, which I feel inclined to remind you, allows for nations to go to war. Did JPII hope and pray for a peaceful resolution? Like all morally sane people, I certainly hope so. Did he redefine just war theology to have an absolute preference for pacifism? Nope. If this is your best quote for JPII "condemning" the Iraq invasion, I suggest you purchase a dictionary.
As for the US Catholic Bishops: The USCCB holds no magisterial authority apart from the individual bishops. The letter which is cited in the Catholic Herald article was roundly criticized for:
1) Adding their own criteria to established Just War criteria
2) Ignoring Just War criteria in the sense that the sovereign and rightful government is the determining body that decides when just war criteria have been met.
3) Misunderstanding the problem. Bush never asserted that Iraq had a direct connection to 9/11. That is the bulk of the letter though.
Regardless, the USCCB is not the Curia nor, more importantly, are they the Vatican. They also do not speak infallibly as the Magisterium does in an ordinary fashion nor the pope in an extraordinary fashion.
On the CNS quote:
"When war, like the one now in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is even more urgent for us to proclaim, with a firm and decisive voice, that only peace is the way of building a more just and caring society"
I challenge you to place this in the context of WWII or the Civil War. Is it any less true? Is it any less applicable? Were those wars unjust?
There is a distinct difference for preferring, preaching and praying for peace and "condemning" one country's decision to go to war. This is not a subtle point and I am not being ignorant. Unfortunately, you cannot see the difference.
good cognitive dissonance
March 27, 2008 - 12:44 ET by mvfreemanApparently you aren't literate enough to understand the first three words "No to war". You stripped the last sentence of context and applied your own.
"On Saturday, during his first public appearance since the start of the military operations against Iraq, the Pope condemned recourse to force as an instrument to solve problems among people.
"When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is even more urgent to proclaim with a determined voice, that peace alone is the way to construct a more just and solidaristic society."
"Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men," the Pope said when receiving employees of the Italian Catholic television channel "Telepace," on the 25th anniversary of its foundation."
http://www.zenit.org/article-6834?l=english
Condemn: 1: to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation
Nice try. Your perception of reality is a little skewed.
So am I to understand . . .
March 27, 2008 - 18:07 ET by WingletDriverthat you've divined the words "reprehensible, wrong or evil" within the pope's address. Amazing how you can read what is not there, like an absence of any words that are synonymous with "condemn" or any reference to the US or George Bush. Making an appeal for peace is different than condemning the US invasion. Understanding that the pope was appealing to all interested parties is pretty simple when you READ WHAT HE SAID.
The quote, surprisingly enough for anybody who can read, can also be taken as an appeal to Iraq because he did not cite either side of the conflict. Or to the UN who stood by haplessly.
This is clear from the press statement in your article. The director of the Vatican press office said: "On the one hand, it is to be regretted that the Iraqi government did not accept the resolutions of the United Nations and the appeal of the Pope himself, as both asked that the country disarm."
You also ignored the cogent points I made about the quote you threw out there.
1) Apply the same quote in context to World War II or the Civil War. Is it any less true? It's not. Therefore, WWII was unjust according to your reading of the Pope (in opposition to the plain text and context). So was the Civil War. So is every war in the history of humanity. Appealing for peaceful solutions is not the same as condemning.
2) Ooops. We have a problem here since Just War theology has been taught for how long? St. Augustine in the 4th century. If you're right, Pope JPII contradicted what has been considered doctrine, which means that either ordinary or Papal infallibility is wrong. JPII knew that, which is why his words were chosen carefully--even if you choose to read more into it than is there.
3) JPII is also aware that the only body that can make the decision on whether a war is justified is the rightful political body of the state (although these political bodies are not protected by the Holy Spirit from making mistakes). As a thoughtful and careful theologian, he also was careful not to refer to Iraq as "unjust" or condemn one side or the other.
Let me make this simple for you. To prove that he "condemned" the US led invasion, please provide a quote made by JPII that actually references any of the synonyms in your definition that can only be applied to the US or George Bush.
LOL
March 27, 2008 - 21:31 ET by mvfreemanJust keep on covering your ears and saying "lalalalalalalala..."
I take it...
March 27, 2008 - 22:12 ET by WingletDriverthat you cannot produce a quote by Pope JPII that did indeed condemn the US invasion since you've stooped to meaningless drivel. I actually found it funny that your last piece actually supported my point. Might I repeat:
"On the one hand, it is to be regretted that the Iraqi government did not accept the resolutions of the United Nations and the appeal of the Pope himself, as both asked that the country disarm."
This is from the Zenit article that you cited and it is clear that the Pope is not condemning the US but the Iraqi government. Thank you for proving my point.
meaningless drivel?
March 27, 2008 - 23:51 ET by mvfreemanYou are the master!!
Your entire argument is based on "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes"!
A+ for trolling.
Once again . . .
March 28, 2008 - 06:28 ET by WingletDriverPlease produce the quote where JPII uses any word that is synonymous with condemn and actually has the words "US" or "George Bush" in it. You may not realize this but--I'll use small words so that you understand--the Pope never used any word like condemn and the last source you cited made it clear that rather than criticizing the US, he was criticizing the Iraqi government.
I find it ironic that you are arguing your point on a blog that is dedicated to media bias and inaccuracy. Once again, please actually READ what the pope said. It is far different than what you and the MSM claim it said. As I pointed out about your AP story "Vatican Strongly Opposes Invasion" these stories have a surprising lack of quotes from JPII and when he is quoted it's taken out of context. For your argument (as I understand it: JPII condemned the US for its invasion of Iraq) to be proved, you MUST provide any quote from JPII that condemns the US (or our allies) for invading Iraq. Providing material, as you did, that criticizes the Iraqi government actually supports my point.
I am pretty sure the two
March 25, 2008 - 11:41 ET by Roger the ShrubberI am pretty sure the two rather-effeminate male members of the group will the "schoolgirls" of the cell block.
No Ken, they would not have been
March 25, 2008 - 11:51 ET by PamHow ridiculous!
Off topic kinda, but I caught this yesterday and titled it Hate Crimes Are Attacks Against Gays and Blacks, Bias Crimes Are Attacks Against Jews
It is in reference to a report of a Rabbi being attacked while the attackers scream Allah Akabar:
Yeah, our own Warner Todd
March 25, 2008 - 12:10 ET by Ken ShepherdYeah, our own Warner Todd Huston wrote about that yesterday:
Yeah, I guess "hate" crimes
March 25, 2008 - 13:09 ET by motherbeltYeah, I guess "hate" crimes can only be committed against blacks; you know, just like blacks "can't" be racist.
But what do I know? I can't decide what's a hate crime and what isn't; I'm just your typical white person.
Nothing will happen to these
March 25, 2008 - 12:00 ET by Chris NormanNothing will happen to these heathens besides maybe a little community service - nothing ever does. They know it and that's why they do it.
Immaturity
March 25, 2008 - 12:00 ET by KC MulvilleScruples are a mental defect. It’s taking a normally sound practice, but turning it into an impossible-to-achieve goal, until it finally deteriorates into a self-destructive obsession. This applies here because these protesters started with a simple principle, namely, encouraging fellow believers to promote justice. However, since it’s impossible to achieve perfect justice, the pursuers will always perceive failure. At this point, most mature and emotionally balanced adults will accept the reality of imperfection, and do what we can reasonably do. Unfortunately, for a number of immature and emotionally fragile members, that isn't enough. Their frustration isn’t a sign that oppression is overwhelming. Instead, it’s a sign that these protestors are incapable of dealing with human imperfection. These protests aren’t a sign of heroic pursuit of justice; instead, it's evidence of deep immaturity.
Catholics go to church to celebrate a sacrament. The church is sacred space, which means that it’s intended strictly for the celebration of sacraments. It’s not just a big hall that we use for whatever community event we like. It’s sacred space, which means we use it for sacramental reasons, and nothing else.
These immature protestors invade sacred space to make their point. That’s what we mean by desecration … they trample on the sacredness of the event. Now as it turns out, desecration is a grave moral sin. You shouldn’t commit a grave moral sin to make a point. That’s usually a tip-off that things are out of whack.
These "devout Catholics" are nothing less than terrorists.
March 25, 2008 - 12:17 ET by R D HelmAnd they should be treated as such.
Their hideous and inexcusable actions could very well have resulted in someone in that church being seriously injured, or possibly even suffering a fatal heart attack. What if these maggot-infested punks had been armed or had a bomb or two?
Something has gone seriously wrong in this country if we can no-longer even attend a church service safely. Personally, I don't think their bails were set high enough.
Thankfully, my home state of Georgia is in the process of modifying the rules when it comes to concealed-carry permits, and we will legally be able to bring our weapons to church.
It is really sad that it has gotten to this point in this country, but this is what happens when a society no-longer teaches our young people any form of respect for the rights of others.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Attending Mass
March 25, 2008 - 12:37 ET by CobraManIf they were truly members of the Roman Catholic Church, as the Chicago Tribune claims, wouldn't they be ATTENDING Mass as opposed to disrupting it?
"Peace and justice is part of what we believe. We always
need to be challenging each other in the church to do more," Daley
said. "[Where] very much depends on the individual situation and who
they hope to communicate with."
So why, pray tell, did they use acts of aggression, like damaging Church property and assaulting people with fake blood, to promote their ideals of "peace and justice?" Oh, and let me know how they feel about receiving some actual justice themselves!
In other news...
March 25, 2008 - 12:40 ET by mvfreemansome catholics are politically liberal.
Interrupting a mass is the height of douche-baggery, but that doesn't mean they aren't members of the catholic church.
Which brings us around to
March 25, 2008 - 12:54 ET by JoeBobWhich brings us around to excommunication a jure latae, or excommunication as soon as an offense occurs and by reason of the offense itself. This was discussed plenty with respect to John Kerry, et al. As KC Mulville pointed out above, desecration is a grave sin. Even if these protestors were raised as members of the Catholic Church, it could be questioned whether they still are, by virtue of self-exclusion.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
They are including themselves
March 25, 2008 - 13:10 ET by mvfreemanquite openly...
http://www.cta-usa.org/index2.php?dest=history.html
and I'm not holding my breath for ex-communication.
emphasis added
March 25, 2008 - 13:28 ET by motherbelt(emphasis and bracketed comments added throughout:
If you read that history, you will find that one of their "heroes" is
HansKung, the Swiss theologian who had become a kind of Catholic folk hero though his call for a more democratic church and his skirmishes with Vatican authorties...
You will see that:
Pope John Paul II repeatedly dashed hopes for any internal liberalizing during his lifetime, and he prepared for the future by appointing as bishops only men who upheld his views on contraception and the ordination of women. [How dare he!]
And that part of their mission is:
# "We call upon church officials to incorporate women at all levels of ministry and decision-making.
# "We call upon the church to discard the medieval discipline of mandatory priestly celibacy and to open the priesthood to women and married me...[sic]
# "We call for extensive consultation with the Catholic people in developing church teaching on human sexuality. [sort of like a "consnsus"?
# "We claim our responsibility as committed laity, religious and clergy to participate in the selection of our local bishops, a time-honored tradition in the church. [We'll schedule interviews to ascertain their views on certain matters...]
# "We call for open dialogue, academic freedom, and due process. {everything is up for grabs!]
Nothing unusual here; just your basic bunch of devout Catholics (who happen to want to remake the Church according to their own wishes.)
There are plenty of people
March 25, 2008 - 13:32 ET by mvfreemanThere are plenty of people who want to reform the catholic church.
That doesn't automatically strip them of their catholicism.
I'm assuming your reply is
March 25, 2008 - 13:40 ET by motherbeltI'm assuming your reply is actually to the comment above mine, regarding excommunication.
They want to define their own Catholicism. That ain't gonna happen.
I know lots of catholics
March 25, 2008 - 14:12 ET by mvfreemanI know lots of catholics who use birth control. Doesn't mean they aren't real catholics. And the idea of letting priests marry is hardly new and novel. The church itself didn't outlaw it til around 390 AD.
The church has changed over time so there is no reason to think it won't change again.
But the one thing this group does agree strongly with is the pope's denouncing of the invasion. So they aren't completely at odds.
Church Changing
March 25, 2008 - 14:28 ET by sam.i.amYou might also know a lot of Catholics that are pro-abortion. And guess what, no, they aren't real Catholics.
The Church changes when a council is held that has all the requisite members of the hierarchy to constitute a true synod. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian, so our priests can be married prior to ordination, but all bishops are celebate. I would love nothing more than to be in full spiritual communion with my Catholic brothers and sisters. Someday, I hope that will happen. The differences are not trivial, but the chasm between us can be overcome.
What we can't tolerate are people trying to change the Church to their liking and weaknesses. Everyone sins and falls short, but the devout acknowledge their sin for what it is. They don't say that the Church is wrong and must change. The Church has resisted pop culture influences for 2000 years now. It will not succomb to a bunch of snot-nosed blasphemers.
If people want to change the Church, get involved, get on your parish council, attend church, be a steward, partake in the sacraments.
If people did all that, they would worry less about changing the Church to suit their needs, and they would appreciate the spiritual changes in themselves that bring them closer to God.
Hmm...
March 25, 2008 - 15:49 ET by mvfreemanBy your standards the church is filled with people who aren't "real" catholics.
Realistically people use birth control because they can't afford upteen kids. But next time you meet a catholic couple with no kids tell them they aren't real catholics. Should go over real well.
Maybe that's why a lot are leaving the church.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=25966
http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/022908/religion.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_7_29/ai_n14735814
"With regard to Catholic population, the survey found that approximately one-third of the survey respondents who were raised Catholic no longer describe themselves as Catholic; this means roughly 10 percent of all Americans are former Catholics."
Confusion
March 25, 2008 - 17:58 ET by KC MulvilleYou have to remember the distinction between the sin and the sinner. Obviously, not every sin throws you out of the church, (although there are a couple that do). These people committed sins, according to the church. Although they may not get excommunicated, that doesn't mean the church tolerates their sin, either. The church teaches that the desecration of a sacrament is a grave offense.
The purpose of the church in the first place is precisely to define what is, and what is not, authentic Christian faith. If the church teaches that something is sinful (e.g.: nonmarital sex, divorce, desecration, whatever), then the people who are doing these things are, by definition, committing sins. You can't say, yeah, but there are plenty of real Catholics who don't agree. (OK, you can say it, but you'd be wrong.) That's confusing the Catholics with Catholicism. They may disagree all they want, but they don't define what's Catholic. The bishops do that.
There are disagreements within the church, of course. But that doesn't give anyone any "wiggle room" about what the bishops teach. If the bishops teach it, game over. You can try to get them to change their minds ... good luck with that ... but the decision is theirs, not the individual Catholics. Whoever believes that they can decide above the bishops is, by definition, not Catholic.
Desecration does
March 25, 2008 - 15:00 ET by CobraMan"That doesn't automatically strip them of their catholicism."
No, but the desecration of the church does. So does the blasphemy they showed by invading and disrupting Easter Mass.
(on edit: blasphemy, not blaspheming)
Nope.
March 25, 2008 - 15:16 ET by mvfreemanIt' gonna be some act of penance and a few hail mary's.
From what I recall it takes a lot more than that to be excommunicated.
Bull
March 25, 2008 - 15:43 ET by CobraManDesecration and blasphemy are excellent grounds for excommunication. People have been excommunicated for far less.
Personal acts of penance are good for punishing minor violations of doctrine. Desecration and blasphemy are major violations of doctrine. The only thing worse than desecration and blasphemy is murder.
Will they be excommunicated? Probably not, but they should be.
Your strawman of equating
March 25, 2008 - 15:39 ET by JoeBobYour strawman of equating desecration to a desire to reform the Church is bullsh*t. I'm not going to judge whether Kerry or the Kennedys or any other Catholic is or isn't a Catholic based on their actions (even if they are consistently hostile to the Church's teachings). But, I'm also not going to accept someone's claim to Catholicism when their actions clearly are hostile to the Church and their claim has the smell of being made for opportunistic reasons. I could claim to be the QueenMum, but I'm obviously not. (sorry, QM).
The statement made by others here goes for me, also: "The morons who did this are not faithful Catholics" and no pitiful prevarication on your part will change it.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
I agree
March 25, 2008 - 15:50 ET by CobraManI fully agree with you. How can anyone equate disagreement with desecration? It’s one thing to disagree with a church, it’s something else when you enter a church for the sole purpose of desecration and blasphemy. I would describe the former as a matter of personal opinion and the latter as an EVIL act!
joebob, whats bs is your reading comprehension
March 25, 2008 - 16:54 ET by mvfreemanI made no comparison. In fact if you read my first post I said they were douche-bags.
That leaves you stuck holding the strawman.
As far as your opinion on their faith maybe you should call their parish and tell their priest how you feel.
The Last Straw, man
March 25, 2008 - 17:10 ET by CobraManYou're the one who's continually equating these people with faithful Catholics. Just what were you trying to say, if not that these are just people looking to reform the Church and are, therefore, just faithful members who got a little out of hand?
I don't know these people.
March 25, 2008 - 17:27 ET by mvfreemanDo you?
Therefore if they say they are catholic who are we to say they are lying. I would think that the church would be sending them a cease and desist letter for calling themselves catholic on their website if they didn't belong to a parish.
And it says in Shepherd's article that not all the members agreed on disrupting a service.
So at this point we have a group of catholics who crossed the line in protesting.
Again, being catholic and being an a**hole are not mutually exclusive.
Attending Church
March 25, 2008 - 13:16 ET by CobraManIf they WERE members of a Catholic church, why weren't they attending Easter Mass and celebrating Christ‘s resurrection like every other Catholic? Why didn't they confess their sins of blaspheme in God‘s church? Why didn't they accept the Eucharist, a clear insult to the faith? Why did they act like, well, little demons in a Holy place? No wonder they’re described as a small faction, no self-respecting Church will have them in their congregation.
No real Catholic would
March 25, 2008 - 12:55 ET by rbosqueNo real Catholic would disrupt the Mass.
The Unibrow strikes again
March 25, 2008 - 13:56 ET by greenfairieThis Manya Moron can't figure out these "frustrated parishoners" are really members of the radical Palestinian useful idiot group, International Solidarity Movement.