| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| 48 House Catholics send warning to Bishops |
| 2004-05-21 |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #19 Jarhead, let me clarify. I am a convert after all so I am often confused by my fellow Catholics. I am not calling for the excommunication of all sinners or persons who disagree with the Church on various issues. I don't understand why many Catholic politicians are publically telling their Bishops and the Pope to jam it. Wouldn't it be more sensible to arrange a meeting with the Bishop and iron the issue out. It seems as if they are trying to make political hay out of thumbing their nose at the Catholic Church. Why are they inviting the press to accompany them to church for a photo op? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-05-22 4:01:51 AM |
| #18 Raf - three in 15 years of marriage all intetional except the first. It was our honeymoon, the Pocanos are expensive. I wanted my money's worth. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-05-22 3:53:04 AM |
| #17 Sarge> agreed. I'm not disputing the role of our church vs moskkk tomfoolery w/regards to 1st Amendment. I also do not wish to live in a theocracy. I also don't want the religion (doesn't matter which) of my elected officials from Michigan getting into his voting on the behalf of *all* his constituents. IMO there are not just Catholics among are fellow Americans - our belief system also doesn't always flow w/other christians, etc. Too that end, a politician needs to do his best to represent what's best for all Americans, if that means he votes his consience and it goes to the letter w/his church teachings - then so be it. If not, then that's fine to. Let's not be naive, the Catholic Church sees things through it's own prizm, and that's to be expected. On the same token, they don't take into account all Americans as all Americans are obviously not Catholic, thus, many American don't buy into *our* Catholic beliefs. As my first post said, the church has every right to deny communion. I don't take issue w/that. The issue for me comes in when statements are made that Catholics who don't follow church doctrine to the letter are not really Catholic and should find another church. Too broad of a statement imho and prolly one reason we have so many fallen away Catholics. In regards to Kerry, he should have expected being so openly pro-choice and now playing 'the big Catholic' would cause tension w/the clergy. I think the church's original letter to him was along the lines "if you continue to vote for pro-choice measures we will withold the sacrament of communion from you". He was already warned, if he goes against their beliefs then they have the right to do what they have to do and he should respect that. BigEd & Sam>Depends on the diocese one belongs to and if your a politician - how openly you disagree w/whatever aspect of church doctrine. According to Vatican II (afaik) openly promoting contraception & having voluntary sterilization (i.e. tubule ligation or vasectomy, I know a bunch of Catholic Marines who are in deep sh*t w/that one) are big no-nos. Definitely not the same as abortion as that is considered a mortal sin as Sarge noted above. Though a Jones Study on Catholics in 2002 found that 53% of Catholics were actually pro-choice, another 90% support contraception, & I believe 60% or so viewed divorce differently from the church - for whatever that's worth. Personally I think the church will have to modernize to some degree or face losing more congregational members. For the record, my wife & I are Catholic and so is my son, I have my own beliefs that do not coincide w/the church & I'm man enough to stand up for them, but overall the Catholic church does a good job imho (minus the sex scandal) and they will always have my support in the big picture. If anyone was to tell me they bought everything any religion taught hook, line, and sinker I'd say good for them but good or bad & based on the shit I've seen go down in my own life and in the military that ain't for me. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-05-21 10:51:08 PM |
| #16 Seems like a reasonable distinction to treat the two situations differently. Condoms prevent pregnancy, abortions kill babies. |
| Posted by: Sam 2004-05-21 9:04:53 PM |
| #15 As a lapsed but originally authentic "Protestant" (Baptised Lutheran), could someone explain the difference in the level of "sin" as the Catholic Bishops see it. It seems they aren't threatening no communion over laws allowing condoms e.g., just abortion. It seems its a matter that the other forms of birth control in their mind "aren't destroying life". I ask this coming from an esentially pro-choice perspective, but would ban partial-brth abortions, and not fund any abortion with tax money. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-21 4:58:12 PM |
| #14 Cyber Sarge - aren't you taking that a little far. You make it sound like religious organizations like the church have a right of free speech. |
| Posted by: Sam 2004-05-21 4:20:07 PM |
| #13 Jarhead, good point but there is a VAST difference from wearing a condom (non mortal sin) than taking the life of a baby (very mortal sin). I don't think we should live in a theocracy but how different is the Bishops position from an Iman that tells the faithful to vote one way or the other. There is a separation of church/state INSIDE the state house but not OUTSIDE. The Bishops are trying to influence outside the state house and they have every right to do so. Again if the Dems feel that strongly about it they should switch faiths because the faith isn't going to change for them. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-05-21 3:40:53 PM |
| #12 user of NFP (Natural Family Planning) Geez, how many kids do you have?? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-21 3:34:57 PM |
| #11 A pro-Life Catholic is like a vegan how eats hot dogs - i.e. not really a vegan. The Hose - user of NFP (Natural Family Planning) |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-05-21 3:31:31 PM |
| #10 Rep. James R. Langevin (R.I.), said that "while I agree with [the bishops] on the pro-life issue, I don't agree with them on denying Communion to those who in good conscience have come to a different position. . . . Would someone explain to me how you come to the position of murdering babies, "....in good conscience"? The problem here is that demoNcrats HAVE NO CONSCIENCE..OR MORALS..PERIOD! demoNcrats eat shit.....and bark at the moon. |
| Posted by: Halfass Pete 2004-05-21 3:27:06 PM |
| #9 The Catholic Church is being unreasonable. They should let the Democrats in Congress promote killing unborn babies. |
| Posted by: Rock 2004-05-21 2:17:34 PM |
| #8 Chris, that is admirable, but ultimately unattainable. I agree that the Church should not compromise, but if it is to survive in the modern world, it must adapt to the modern world. Core values are one thing that should never be altered or played with, and there's a lot to be said for tradition (and I'll agree with you about that rock music - I really cannot stand it; two of my roommates this past semester listened to it and it nearly drove me out of my mind!), but if the Church does not remain open to new interpretations based on logical approaches, if it does not try and evolve as the world evolves, its message will be marginalized, regarded as anachronistic, and lost. See Islam's current situation for an example of a religion that remains stuck in the 7th century. |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2004-05-21 12:19:29 PM |
| #7 The dems have no shame. They think their bully boy tactics can work on everyone. Ultimately there is only one way to stand up to a bully, so what will the bishops do? |
| Posted by: Douglas De Bono 2004-05-21 11:27:52 AM |
| #6 Putting some of the more contradictory positions of the church in the past, consider this: I think it's great that the church is putting it's foot down on this issue. I've always believed that the church is the church and they should NEVER change to "suit the times" or to bring the young people to their services. The Catholics don't do it very often, but the non-Catholics do. For every new style of rock music (for example), some churchy musical group steals that style and replaces the word "baby" with "Jesus", and WHAMMO! - contemporary-sounding music being used to bring in modern worshippers, with a secondary emphasis on the "message". How is it that, only 50-100 years ago, people were taught by the church elders that "secular revelry" (aka anything not approved by the church) was a mortal sin and you would be going straight to Hell with a brief stopover in Purgatory for enjoying that pagan lifestyle? What about all those millions of people who believed these things and were told by the "higher authority" not to enjoy evil rock music or those blasphemous "novels" that became so popular since the end of the 1800s? The church should NEVER change. They ask that people believe that the teachings of Christ are unchangeable and that they have been the same for 2000 years. How then can they remain consistent in this regard if they try to make the church "modern"? Answer: they can't. The recent pronouncements by the church are a very welcome return to their core beliefs in my opinion, even though the church isn't always a paragon of consistancy. And now, back to your regularly scheduled Rantburg. |
| Posted by: Chris W. 2004-05-21 11:24:10 AM |
| #5 "people who were Catholic but did follow church doctrine. I think they are called PROTESTANTS" >guess a lot of Catholics are Protestants then - since many use some form of contraception prohibited by Vatican II (not to include abortion). |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-05-21 11:00:09 AM |
| #4 In my CCD Classes tha taught us about people who were Catholic but did follow church doctrine. I think they are called PROTESTANTS. If they want to pick/choose which to follow then I suggest these Senators go that route. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-05-21 10:13:16 AM |
| #3 I'm Catholic & I like being Catholic and while I don't personally condone abortion, I would not vote to abolish it across the board. I guess the church could withhold the sacrament from me as well. I agree that the church should stick to its convictions and deny him communion if they wish as it is their right. The crux comes to public office, if Kerry wants to support ideas the church is against he should be man enough to accept the consequences of those beliefs - that's called being a stand up guy. Pitching a fit and having Catholic politicos sending lame letters to the church is silly imho. I'd respect these people more if they gave the JFK line about not speaking for the church and the church not speaking for them. At that point, the church can make it's own decision regarding who gets communion or whatever. Separation of church and state works two ways. That's what I'd say, but personally, I'd rather keep my religion personal and out of politics - a mistake I think Kerry made when he started this "I'm a huge Catholic look at me" and now is getting called on it. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-05-21 10:12:21 AM |
| #2 So here we have some elected officials trying to tell the Catholic Church what to do. Isn't that against the seperation of Church and State? Where is the ACLU? This is typical Democratic BS. Pick and choose which laws to enforce (we will enforce affirmitive action but not immigration). Somehow I don't think they will be allowed to pick-and-choose which laws of God you follow like they are allowed to choose which laws of Man to follow. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-05-21 9:47:33 AM |
| #1 I wonder, would they complain about Muslims being elected to office on the grounds that a true Muslim's loyalty is supposed to be first and foremost to the umma, and not to his country? Or would that be "racist"? Or are they just scared because their public positions clash with the beliefs of their professed religion? Personally, I think that if the Church wants to deny them communion, the Church has that right. The time is past when disagreements led to excommunication by a temporally powerful Pope. And if they don't like being Catholic, there are plenty of other branches. No one's going to kill them if they switch. I myself am not Catholic, but I would be very dismayed to see the Church reverse its stance because of a bunch of politicians who want to both have religion and take whatever positions they like. Either show that you believe what you profess to, or pick another denomination. |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2004-05-21 9:35:02 AM |