Article

2004-07-23 Home Front: Politix

Catholic Church to Kerry: No Communion for you

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-07-23 12:51:28 AM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 All typos mine - I didnt see an online source.

Oh -and regarding other issues of importnace to Rantburgers, here is the Cardinal again:

Not all moral issues ahve the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himslef to recieve holy COmmunion. WHile the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it sti may be permissible to take up arms or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even amon Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-07-23 12:59:20 AM|| 2004-07-23 12:59:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 One last thing before I turn in:

I am very uncomfortable with this, because denying Communion is a serious thing. But we do have some locals in our parish whom the arish priests are agoing to have to talk to. And we have been told to deny them communion - one of them is actively involved in "pro choice" pollitical groups, and one of the others is our local state representative who voted in favor of abortion laws, and against restrictions on abortion.

Basically unless these people decide their church is more important than their politics, they will never recieve communion legitimately in our parish, and possibly throughout the diocese.

For those Non-Catholics out there wondering why you should be concerned with this:

Its a key insight into the chracter of various candidates. Do they live up to their professed beliefs? Do they say one thing and do anohter? Do they place politics above spirituality? Are they morally honest?

If they are Catholic, you have a very good gauge with which you can now measure them: Abortion laws and thier faith.

ANd right now, Kerry and Kennedy fail as Catholics and as moral cowards.

Cowardice? Yes. If they disagree on a fundamental issue, they shoud be honest enough to admit it, and then leave the Catholic Church instead of trying to bend it to their convenience.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-07-23 1:07:08 AM|| 2004-07-23 1:07:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Stop: A priest with balls. Is that heavenly possible?

Posted by Capt America 2004-07-23 2:36:21 AM|| [http://captamerica.blogspot.com/] 2004-07-23 2:36:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 But, but, but, Senator Kerry was an altar boy once and had visions of entering the priesthood (this was even before THHREEEESSSAAA)

Posted by Capt America 2004-07-23 2:40:36 AM|| [http://captamerica.blogspot.com/] 2004-07-23 2:40:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 In the old days this was called excommunication. What ever happened to that?

Posted by virginian 2004-07-23 8:29:13 AM|| 2004-07-23 8:29:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I have a problem with this. One of the concerns people had about electing JFKennedy was that they didn't want the Pope yanking the president's chain. I don't care for Senator JoKe, but the idea of church leaders leaning on him like this in order to make him do what they want disturbs me greatly.

Posted by BH 2004-07-23 9:59:12 AM|| 2004-07-23 9:59:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 As a point of information, the good cardinal is the head of Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In the good old days before 1888, this congregation was known as the Inquisition. Myself I would consider it an honor to be chastised by this man. Probably a good thing he can't have people burned at the stake anymore, although that probably grieves him. Also, as one of the most corrupt political organizations on the face of the earth, they aren't in much of a position to be sticking their noses in other countries policies. This isn't purely spiritual, since they're targeting political figures they don't like.

Posted by DLS 2004-07-23 10:27:57 AM|| 2004-07-23 10:27:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 This is a private matter between Kerry and the Church he professes to follow, BH.

BTW, the denial of communion is for the benefit of the OFFENDER: Paul, in First Corintians 11, verses 26 to 32, talks about some Christians, partaking of communion in an unworthy manner, suffering in the body.

Tons of idiotarians, BH, want to be regarded as intelligent while spewing out pure stupidity. Kerry want's to be regarded as pious while holding a position that his Church has said, repeatedly and plainly, that is NOT pious.

AFAIAK, Kerry has the right to be a lapsed, unreprentant, violating Catholic, while the Catholic Church has a right to TREAT him like a lapsed, unrepentant, violating Catholic. People who bitch about that object to their suffering the consequences of their decisions.

Posted by Ptah 2004-07-23 10:30:54 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-07-23 10:30:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 It is a private matter. To apply it to specific political figures only makes it a very public matter. Polls in the US consistently show catholics views on birth control and abortion mirror the rest of the population. So, roughly 25-30 million catholics disagree with the church stand. Is the good crdinal demanding ALL of these people be denied communion? Not that I've heard.

Posted by DLS 2004-07-23 10:47:16 AM|| 2004-07-23 10:47:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 BH: The "concern" about electing Kennedy was that his beliefs might be a de facto violation of the establishment clause. The Kerry issue is the polar opposite--the Catholic church has EVERY right to determine that Kerry is violating church tenants, and expecting him to live up to church principles is a matter between the Catholic church and him.

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 10:58:20 AM|| 2004-07-23 10:58:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 If the good Cardinal feels this strongly about abortion, he should also be looking for enforcement of teachings on contraception as I believe the theological underpinings are the same, but I could be corrected.

In any case, Rome has a problem with an American church that has in many respects been protestantized. Trying to impose discipline on any issue at this late date is likely to be counterproductive with Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

This might be a private matter between the politician and his church if the issue were handled through private pastoral counseling. But the church going public with its rebuke and call for discipline makes its public statement a matter for political debate.

The Catholic Church had a history of interferring in the politics of various European countries. While it has been unable to do so with any consistency recently, the threat becoming palpable is probably the one thing that could unite non-Catholics of all stripes. That this is not happening shows how likely Rome is to be successful this time. If the church really wanted to show its courage and faith in the righteouness of its position, it would simply excommunicate him privately, restate its position on the theology and morality of abortion with which I agree, and make no comment on how Americans should vote.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-07-23 11:16:03 AM|| 2004-07-23 11:16:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Crusader: Then maybe the "concern" was warranted. Put it this way: we already know that the Vatican was opposed to action against Afghanistan and Iraq. Wasn't much they could do - Bush isn't RC. Suppose Kerry wins and, based on intelligence, decides that action against Iran is required. How far does the church go to avert this? Threaten him with excommunication?

Posted by BH 2004-07-23 11:26:23 AM|| 2004-07-23 11:26:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 I think some people are missing the point. The point is simple, Kerry has tried to use his christianity and his Catholicism to help his political cause, yet in terms of faith, he is a hypocrite. He violates the tenets of his faith that he says he believes. It shows much about his character, or lack thereof.

Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-07-23 11:38:19 AM|| 2004-07-23 11:38:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 "This cooperation can never be justified either by invokling respect for the freedom of others nor by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it."

Well, I invoke respect for the freedom of others who many are non-Catholics and have different beliefs. I agree w/BH & DLS. So, I guess me and 25-30 million other Catholics need to leave the church as well, doubt that's gonna happen. The moral authority of the church has eroded so badly in this country after all the pedophile scandals it's hard to take this one seriously. This will only make more people think they are playing politics & being hypocritical. I think Kerry's a joke as well but I think this actually helps his cause w/women voters. Lucky Bush is Methodist or the Catholic church might deny him communion because he hasn't done more to repeal Roe v. Wade. The church is starting an incremental slippery slope w/this tact and it disturbs me as well.

Crusader> I disagree, Kennedy was getting blasted for his religion. It had more to do w/prejudice & misconceptions about Catholicism by a vocal number of Americans at the time. The thought that he'd take orders directly from the pope gave many concern. Hence, he said to paraphrase "I do not speak for the Catholic church and they do not speak for me." I think if Kerry says the same thing and takes the same stance we who back Bush might have trouble getting some our undecided brethren to come over to the Republican vote.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-23 11:47:56 AM|| 2004-07-23 11:47:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 I'm non-denominational myself. I became disilusioned with the Baptist faith becomes of some of their teachings. The Jewish Profit, Yeshua, taught that stirct adderance to Jewish law was not enough. If you obey these religious laws just because you will be punished if you don't isn't adequate. Following the letter of the law won't cut it. You have to have it in your heart and do the right things because you believe them to be the right things. It seems to me that Judaism, Cathilicism, Protestantiam, and Islam are all in that same trap. "If I don't do this I'll go to hell so I'll do it even if I don't really want to." The thing that bothers me about having a devout Catholic as President is would he do what the Pope told him to? It is a difficult delima for a devoutly religious person to come to terms with. As President he would not only preside over Catholics but all others as well and would he reconcile his beliefs with fairly governing everyone? The same thing would apply tp ANY devoutly religious leader.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-07-23 12:21:03 PM|| 2004-07-23 12:21:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 The decisions of any lawmaker involve there own convictions and impressing those convictions upon others. Law and politics necessarily involve imposition. The mere fact of imposition is not necessarily wrong. The mechanism which leads to the imposition (does a judge or does an elected body make the law) and the substance of the imposition (don't murder, or, you must murder infidels) do matter.
It is substantively irrelevant for the public where a politician derives his convictions. I, as a voter, either agree or disagree with the convictions. I either vote or will not vote for the convictions.
In Kennedy's case, the argument could be that even though Kennedy said he would do X, he will really do Y, becuase he is a Catholic. Kennedy's argument was essentially that he was going to do what he publicly expressed that he would do.
Denying a pro-abortion politician communion is no different than what any other group could and does do with politicians who claim membership in the group and who also seek that group's political assistance. Change the group from Catholic to any other interest group: If a politician explicitly denied and actively campaigned against that group on some important point, would not that group eventually kick him out?
No one forces a politician to be Roman Catholic. If Kerry doesn't agree with the Catholic church, let him become something else.

Posted by Anonymous5650 2004-07-23 12:27:11 PM|| 2004-07-23 12:27:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Deacon> well said. I think you nailed it.

5650> maybe Kerry doesn't want to become something else, kind of like the other 25+ million Catholics who are pro-choice.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-23 12:39:18 PM|| 2004-07-23 12:39:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 *scratches his head*
when a religous body(whatever) uses religon to threaten a poltical figure(whomever) because of that figure's political activities/goals...
meh.

doesn't it threaten the foundations of our secular nation when any church of any religion seeks to control political figures ?

that religous whozawhatzi ought to sit down and shut up, religion involves no more than two entities. person B and god A, if A don like B, he sure don need some person B++ to make that clear... (the ++ means he says he holy. Therefore he is, never mind the priest he is-hiding/has-hid another priest who likes to ram his engourged phalus up little butts)

sure I donât like kerry, but this is just a religous figure playing politics and no more

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-07-23 1:05:01 PM|| 2004-07-23 1:05:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 dangit. I gotta remmember to proof read.. :-/ sorry

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-07-23 1:05:58 PM|| 2004-07-23 1:05:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Jarhead: The point is that 25+ million Catholics already are "something else" be default, since Catholic doctrines do not allow for a "pro choice" position.

I've had similar discussions with a Methodist friend of mine. She holds positions that are 180 degrees of the official Methodist doctrine. I've pointed out that her insistance on teaching those doctrines makes her a heretic, and that if she is that adamant about her position, that she needs to resign her membership (I'm not part of her congregation--the advice I've given is in deference to a denomination I'm not even a part of).

Just how hard is for people to figure out that if your beliefs don't mesh with the "official" beliefs of a group, then you're not "officially" "X" (whatever the group in question is). Create your own congregation/denomination, label yourself "Reformed Group X", or something of the sort, but to pretend you can make up your own beliefs and YET STILL retain your status as member in good standing of a group that holds a diametric opinion is intellectually and spiritually dishonest.

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 1:09:59 PM|| 2004-07-23 1:09:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 See? I told 'ya this was going to happen!

Posted by Martin Calvin Luther Geneva 2004-07-23 1:24:31 PM|| 2004-07-23 1:24:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 So if these 25 million catholics are really something else, why doesn't the church cleanse itself and kick them out? Why just single out a politician who happens to be catholic who you don't like? Remember the old saying: If they tell you it isn't about the money, it's about the money. The church can't financially afford to threaten all these people. God forbid, they might do a Martin Luther and form their own church. A little venial in my book.

Posted by DLS 2004-07-23 1:29:35 PM|| 2004-07-23 1:29:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Oops. #21 beat me to it by five minutes.

Posted by DLS 2004-07-23 1:30:21 PM|| 2004-07-23 1:30:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 as info, crusader, there are some religious bodies that maintain few dogmas, or dispute what actually is a dogma. The RCC(and the UMC) may not be among them, but I suspect even their histories are more complex than that. Certainly there are positions that were heretical in 1960, that were RCC doctrine by 1965. The RCC probably holds it just as well that folks didnt leave the RCC in the meantime.

In any case I hope you guys who are jumping for joy about what this does to Kerry will think a bit more. Gov Pataki of NY is Catholic and supports a prochoice position on govt policy. IF American bishops go along with this (and many clearly dont want to, and its not clear - IIUC - that Ratzinger can make them) this will have profound impacts on American politics. Not good ones, I think.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 1:33:29 PM|| 2004-07-23 1:33:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 To Liberalhawk, DLS, and others:

I understand the points you're making, but I don't think its really that hard to keep one's life "consistent". By "consistent", I mean that as a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, I *DON'T* publically (or even privately that I'm aware of) pontificate positions (whether political or otherwise) that are in contradiction to the LCMS position. Were I to do so (and particularly if part of my "appeal to the public" was about what a DEVOUT Lutheran I was), I would be both a hypocrite and a heretic.

Its really simple--if you're "going public" with a group affiliation, there shouldn't be any glaring inconsistencies with what *you* state and what the group states.

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 1:52:08 PM|| 2004-07-23 1:52:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Sorry, crusader, but I find it incredibly difficult to keep my life consistent. Following the logic of what you say, the only way to do it is to give total control of what you think over to some religious authority. I don't believe in absolutism, religious or otherwise. Things change over time. Galileo and the church, etc. As a teaching of the Buddha said: "The rock does not change, yet it advances." Or in western terms: adapt or die. The church is free to promulgate whtever doctrine it wishes. It is not free to try to use it's little remaining authority to interfere in our politics. An organization that recently gave cardinal Law of Boston a seat as head of one of the six most important cathedrals in Rome is in no position to tell me or anybody else what to think.

Posted by DLS 2004-07-23 2:11:46 PM|| 2004-07-23 2:11:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Crusadeer: I understand your point. It sounds as though some of the other posters are arguing from a Protestant standpoint - that one is free to determine what is correct independent of the church, or that one is free to switch denominations if one doesn't agree with their church. I think you may have done the reverse in your Lutheran example. Someone help me: do the Protestant denominations recognize the concept of heresy?

The church can tell its congregation what to do, of course. If they want to live their own lives according to church law, no big deal. But when church authorities declare that its followers must vote a certain way

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of sucha lw, or vote for it.

... then no member (in good standing) of that church should be elected, EVER. They are not only telling you how to live your life; they are telling you how to make others live their lives. That is a violation of the establishment clause.

Most politicians, for better or worse, do take their religious beliefs into consideration when performing their civic service. But when a church mandates that you will vote as they wish, or suffer the consequences, that crosses a line.

Posted by BH 2004-07-23 2:28:07 PM|| 2004-07-23 2:28:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 DLS: You are completely missing the point on this matter. Its one thing for YOU to state "I don't believe in absolutism", but to the Catholic Church (and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and some others I'm sure) there *ARE* and *MUST BE* some absolutes. One cannot call oneself "Catholic" or "Lutheran" and yet simultaneously believe that Jesus was a ONLY a nice man who said a few good things--the Catholic Church (and LCMS) have defined him as the Son of God. No matter how "enlightened" or "open-minded" you might consider yourself to be, the Church cannot afford such luxaries.

From what I've read, the Catholic church feels that it is INCOMPATABLE for a person to be "In Christ" and yet willing to support the destruction of the unborn. Those that believe otherwise are by definition out of fellowship with the Catholic church.

You also stated "Following the logic of what you say, the only way to do it is to give total control of what you think over to some religious authority." I disagree--you retain TOTAL control over what you think and what you do. You can think and believe as your church has stated, or you can remove yourself from their midst. Personally, I know that should the day ever come that the LCMS adopts some of the silly platforms that other denominations have (such as belief that the Islamic God "Allah" is no different than the God of the old/new testament), I will WITHDRAW from the denomination--at that point in time, my own beliefs would no longer allow me to claim affiliation with them.

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 3:09:03 PM|| 2004-07-23 3:09:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 But when a church mandates that you will vote as they wish, or suffer the consequences, that crosses a line.

BH: How? You're stating that the Catholic church is NOT allowed to enforce its own membership requirements? By that logic, the NRA would be forced to accept as members folks opposed to the ownership of guns!

And when you say "suffer the consequences", what you really mean is "no longer be a member in good standing"--its not as if they are going to flog him, arrest him, or any other such "consequence".

I don't mean to be obstinate, but if churches worldwide reach the conclusion that the "expediant" and "enlightened" trumps the "Holy", they will write their own death warrant so far as moral and spiritual relevance goes.

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 3:21:01 PM|| 2004-07-23 3:21:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Crusader: I'm not missing any point. Feel free to believe in any absolute you want. Just don't tell me that i have to adhere to your beliefs, or base my Political beliefs on your absolutes. OBTW: since both your church and the Eternal Catholic Church have absolute beliefs; just exactly which one of you is right? I've always had a problem with this. Most people in this country and around the world express a belief in god (small "g"). To me, such an entity would be beyond human understanding: that which is behind the "Mask of Eternity" spoken of in Moby Dick. ("Listen ye, Starbuck, all things are as pasteboard masks"). Who can claim absolute knowledge of such an entity? Not a lot of catholics or others who no longer subscribe to total churchly authority. Are they all wrong? Only you are right? Only a true believer can belong to a religious organization? You and the fundamentalist Muslims have more in common than you think. What an ego trip.

Posted by DLS 2004-07-23 3:26:42 PM|| 2004-07-23 3:26:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 crusader - dare i suggest that the papacy has a long record of thinking about whats expedient? I daresay Cardinal Ratzinger does as well.

Which is NOT to say what the RCC ought or ought not to do. That is NOT fundamentally, anything that NON RCs have any right to suggest, and certainly we lack adequate knowledge.

But HOW such pronouncements impact American politics IS something we must at least think about. Certainly we as VOTERS need not hold self-proclaimed Catholic politicians to account, whatever the Vatican suggests.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 3:28:51 PM|| 2004-07-23 3:28:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 see what i have a problem with is this

"Its a key insight into the chracter of various candidates. Do they live up to their professed beliefs? Do they say one thing and do anohter? Do they place politics above spirituality? Are they morally honest?

If they are Catholic, you have a very good gauge with which you can now measure them: Abortion laws and thier faith.

ANd right now, Kerry and Kennedy fail as Catholics and as moral cowards."

The RCC, its bishops, priests, etc have EVERY right to refuse communions to anyone based on their standards. EVERY RIGHT. But to suggest that non-Catholic VOTERS must determine their views of a candidate based on the views of the Vatican - whose views on middle east politics are INDEED "expedient" to the point of being despicible - this is a point of view I HAVE EXTREME difficulty with. There ARE Catholics who disagree with Ratzinger on this - IIUC there are American BISHOPS who disagree.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 3:33:45 PM|| 2004-07-23 3:33:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 You're stating that the Catholic church is NOT allowed to enforce its own membership requirements?

Crusader: No, I'm saying that if these are the requirements of membership, then members are not qualified for government service.

Posted by BH 2004-07-23 3:34:01 PM|| 2004-07-23 3:34:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 BH - i dont know. IF the position is one thats made clear before a candidate is elected, and we know that no others will be enunciated later, i dont see this has to disqualify.

Lets say Rick Santorum gets up and says he'll always vote to make abortion illegal, and will do so cause the RCC requires him to.

Why is that any different from Newt Gingrich saying so based purely on his own personal beliefs. Now IF there was a real threat that the RCC might require Santorum to CHANGE his stated positions DURING his term of office, that would be different - but thats not a real concern in this case, is it?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 4:03:19 PM|| 2004-07-23 4:03:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 BH> good establishment clause tie in. I wasn't bright enough to think up that angle.

DLS> "A little venial in my book" -You're writing a book?

LH> #31/32 - Nice assessment.

I've certainly been enlightened today. Good thread overall, thanks folks. Time for me to go play golf now. God told me to ;)

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-23 4:08:51 PM|| 2004-07-23 4:08:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 It seems to me a clever priest could say,

well I'm not sure what Kerry's current position is; yes I've been told he was in favor of permitting abortions but is he in favor of it at this exact minute that he is take the host

or the priest could say, "I can't make sense out of Kerry's position- he seems to be a flip flopper/ straddler - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt"

Posted by mhw 2004-07-23 4:22:22 PM|| 2004-07-23 4:22:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Liberalhawk:

I'm not sure it matters if a candidate makes his position clear beforehand or not, though it would make it difficult to determine how he formulated his policy. The problem is that if the candidate has shown himself willing to base his policy on rulings by another authority, then he may be willing to do so in the future.

The church will not likely change its views on abortion, but there are other current events that change pretty rapidly. Let's say that halfway through a Kerry presidency the church adopts a policy hostile toward Israel. Could they reasonably expect the president to adopt their policy? Could he be forced to?

Crusader said above that "its not as if they are going to flog him, arrest him, or any other such consequence", but for a believing Catholic, isn't losing your standing in the church a pretty bad consequence?

Posted by BH 2004-07-23 4:25:49 PM|| 2004-07-23 4:25:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 BH - but how long did it take the RCC to get from "abortion is wrong" to "abortion is so wrong that catholics must oppose its being legal for non-Catholics" to "abortion is so wrong that not only is it licit to deny a pol communion, but its mandatory to do so"

The wheels of the Vatican turn slowly, IIUC. I cant see them making say, opposition to Israel something a pol could be forced to do on pain of loss of communion in the relatively short time span of four years.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 4:35:04 PM|| 2004-07-23 4:35:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 So all this basically means that no Catholic can ever run for public office.

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-23 4:36:26 PM|| 2004-07-23 4:36:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 mhw - so Kerry can only get communion from a Jesuit? ;)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 4:37:37 PM|| 2004-07-23 4:37:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 #39 - lord, i hope it doesnt mean that - with (at least nominal) RC's something like 25 to 30% of the population, that would be a devastating blow to our democracy.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 4:41:27 PM|| 2004-07-23 4:41:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Liberalhawk: I dunno, they moved pretty fast in condemning the Iraq War. They are showing a willingness to strong-arm a US presidential candidate. The slow crawl of bureaucracy doesn't make me feel any better about it.

Posted by BH 2004-07-23 4:42:06 PM|| 2004-07-23 4:42:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 theres a long way from issuing a press release, to doing what Ratzinger is doing above. Remember, hes NOT just strong arming Kerry - hes strong arming every American BISHOP - hes making a call that previously had been left to THEM - IIUC, thats a far bigger deal, and more controversial in the church. I expect this is going to create a stir within the church - EVEN though its on something thats settled dogma - if the Vatican tried it on something less settled, theyd have a very hard time of it.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 4:49:07 PM|| 2004-07-23 4:49:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 I'd agree with that. But whatever controversy it causes within the church, they also need to take a look at how this ruling affects the non-Catholic perspective. By their efforts to interfere with the US election, they have just confirmed the fears of those "nuts" who thought an RC president would be under the sway of the Pope.

Posted by BH 2004-07-23 5:17:41 PM|| 2004-07-23 5:17:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 (Italicized parts below are from DLS's post at #30)

Feel free to believe in any absolute you want. Just don't tell me that i have to adhere to your beliefs, or base my Political beliefs on your absolutes.

The Catholic Church, or even "Crusader's Brand New Religion", has the right to tell you that you either adhere to the tenants of the faith or that you are not a member in goodstanding. If you don't like hearing that, you can withdraw from the Catholic Church (or from Crusader's Brand New Religion). That's how many organizations operate and there's nothing terribly new or oppresive about it.

OBTW: since both your church and the Eternal Catholic Church have absolute beliefs; just exactly which one of you is right?

Its off-topic for this thread. We Lutherans jokingly answer by saying "We used to be Catholic, until we renounced their heathen ways!" (Yes, its a joke--no flames please.)

I've always had a problem with this. Most people in this country and around the world express a belief in god (small "g"). To me, such an entity would be beyond human understanding: that which is behind the "Mask of Eternity" spoken of in Moby Dick.

You have that right as an American, and as a human being. But you would be disingenuine if you claimed to be "Catholic" while holding that position. And the Catholic church would have every right to decide to withhold communion from you were it to become aware that you believed as such.

Who can claim absolute knowledge of such an entity?

Anyone can claim it. If you join an outfit that claims it, yet don't REALLY believe it, you're not exactly a member in good standing, particularly if you're public about your disagreement.

Only a true believer can belong to a religious organization?

That seems fundamental, doesn't it? Why would a non-true believer even WISH to claim religious affiliation?

You and the fundamentalist Muslims have more in common than you think. What an ego trip.

I think you've wandered off into the deep end now.

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 5:41:26 PM|| 2004-07-23 5:41:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 BH - well i dont think its hard to make the case that from the overall point of view of the RCC, this was a VERY inexpedient move. But theres a certain internal politics going on, or so ive seen it written, in which Cardinal Ratzinger and others associated with Opus Dei, are trying to put muscle on the "namby pamby liberals" in the church.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 5:47:31 PM|| 2004-07-23 5:47:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Why would a non-true believer even WISH to claim religious affiliation?

Er, uhm, clears throat, if you belong to a religion that defines itself largely by what you do, and allows considerable (though disputed) leeway in what you believe. And in which the denominational boundaries are vague, and largely a matter of convenience. Such that theological disputes actually overlap "denominational" lines, except on a limited number of questions, that many laypeople are hardly aware of. To the point that we dont even use the world denominations, but prefer "movements" and "trends"

I could be a religious naturalist like Mordechai Kaplan, a traditional believer like Abraham Joshua Heschel, or somewhere in between like most Conservative Rabbis, and I would still fit in Conservative Judaism.

Jewish by birth, Conservative (religiously that is:) by choice, American by the grace of G-d!!!!

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 5:56:37 PM|| 2004-07-23 5:56:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Liberalhawk:

And that's fine, for organizations that allow that amount of leeway. For example, as long as you want to save the environment, I don't think Greenpeace or the other environmental groups are going to ask you about your religious beliefs.

BUT, if you wish to *join* and *maintain* standing in a "club" or "church" that has specific requirements for its members that are tied to both beliefs and actions, its not oppressive of that "club" or "church" to monitor whether you make the grade or not.

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 6:06:32 PM|| 2004-07-23 6:06:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 yeah, thats fine, im just doing my obligatory - "the dogma centered christian/muslim view of what defines religious affiliation aint the only one" thing.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 6:09:05 PM|| 2004-07-23 6:09:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Liberalhawk:

*nods to you* Yes, I understand that, and I have no problem with what you point out.

I do admit to be rather taken aback at how much resistance there seems to be (not from you, just in general) to the thought that VOLUNTARY "clubs" (like a church) can regulate who is and isn't in good standing. Its not as if Kerry was FORCED to join the Catholic church--that was his decision. Nor was he FORCED to tell the public about his membership. Nor was he FORCED to publically take positions contrary to what the Catholic church believes.

If there is any "compulsion" in this story, its coming from people like Kerry who seem to believe that the Catholic Church MUST tolerate his public proclamations and public actions contrary to church policy WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCE with regard to his membership.

Allright, I'll try to climb down off today's soapbox!

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 6:19:24 PM|| 2004-07-23 6:19:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Crusader. So you can claim absolute knowledge. OK. You just left me at the door. I'm not that smart. Fundamentalists can't be reasoned with because they know they're right. It's amazing how many wars have been started over the years by people who "know" that they're right. News bulletin for the day: Not all people in the world believe in a fundamentalist view of religion. I believe you were the one who said that you would leave your religion if someone tried to claim your god was the same as the muslim god. Guess what? They all ARE the same god. The problem comes in when people claim to know the unknowable and understand that which can't be understood. Lutherans aren't "Right" anymore than anyone else, or anymore wrong. We all come from a different starting place, so god speaks in many tongues to many diverse people. We just don't often get the point very well. Another saying of the Buddha: Those who know, don't. Those who know they don't know, know. Yes, the Buddha probably says more to me than other religious philosophies. So? He also never claimed to be anything but a man, or to know the truth for others. Never started any religious wars either.

Posted by DLS 2004-07-23 6:23:56 PM|| 2004-07-23 6:23:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 DLS: You need to calm down.

I never required *you* to believe anything--I merely pointed out that the Catholic church CAN if you wish to be a member.

And you're wrong about the Muslim god issue. I could provide you the links, but you don't seem interested in rational dialogue. In short, "Allah" was the Meccan moon-god. Further, "Allah" was not even Mohammed's FIRST god--that was Al-Raheem. That "god"--Al-Raheem is mentioned 51 times in the Quran and Hadith before "Allah" is transitioned in. Further, were you to compare the God of the Torah and New Testament with the ugly creature contained in the Quran, you would notice that they seem to have nothing in common with regard to (alleged) behavior.

And its interesting that a person who claims "no absolutes" makes numerous "absolute" statements.

Relax, and reread what I wrote (versus what you seem to THINK that I wrote).

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 6:32:37 PM|| 2004-07-23 6:32:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Iâm not Catholic, but (as I understand it) the whole matter has to do with Cannons and historic teaching. There are some matters that are open to discussion and dialogue without changing peopleâs status in the eyes of their Church -- a lot of politics falls into that category. There are other matters that are so important to the Church that it can lead to actual splits in the Church (e.g., Catholic/Orthodox, Catholic/Protestant, etc.). The level of seriousness of any given issue has to do with how clearly something is mentioned in the Church Cannons and Holy Scriptures, and with how the headship of the Church has traditionally interpreted teaching on that point. Differences on all of these matters can be accepted, without the differences resulting in calling people non-Christian. However, the violation of Cannonical and Scriptural prohibitions (as seen in the light of historic teaching on a given point) may cause a person to be excommunicated until the violations stop. Excommunication (i.e., the withholding of the Eucharist/communion) doesnât mean that the Church is damning someone to hell or saying that someone is not a Christian, it just means the person canât take communion until that person and the Church are in agreement on an essential issue. For example, a Baptist canât get Catholic communion, and vice versa -- but many will say that both are Christian. THEY JUST DONâT TAKE COMMUNION TOGETHER BECAUSE OF REAL DIFFERENCES ON REAL ISSUES. A pro-abortion stance violates Church teaching going back to the First Century, and may also violate Cannons (from a Catholic perspective, see this link, DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION). Unless a person agrees with the Church on abortion, why take communion? Without agreement on such a fundamental issue, there is nothing in common to commune over. Some Christian churches accept abortion as OK. Professed Christians who support abortion may find thatâs where they want to go, and who they are in agreement with. However, the Catholic Church does not accept abortion as consistent with professing Christianity. You canât support abortion and commune in a Catholic Christian Church, an Orthodox Christian Church, and many other Christian Churches.

Posted by cingold 2004-07-23 7:00:00 PM|| 2004-07-23 7:00:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Well put, cingold.

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 7:03:49 PM|| 2004-07-23 7:03:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Omg a long thread and it doesn't have Aris or Anti in it.:)

Posted by djohn66 2004-07-23 7:18:35 PM|| 2004-07-23 7:18:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Professed Christians who support abortion may find thatâs where they want to go, and who they are in agreement with.

Except kerry may not SUPPORT abortion, he may just not support legislation to make it illegal in the US. I realize that can also be a matter of church doctrine (the church views it as murder, and insists Catholics support bans on murder - though damn i wish they could have been more vocal about murder in 1942) But it puts in a different perspective for non-catholics.

Thought experiment - Imagine Orthodox Jewish rabbis insisted not only that Jews shouldnt eat ham, but that it should be illegal for everyone. Some jewish politician - lets call him "Joe":) says that he dont eat ham, but he believes in choice. Now the entire orthodox rabbinite threatens him with excommunication. Wouldnt you at least be SYMPATHETIC to the poor guy?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-23 7:18:15 PM|| 2004-07-23 7:18:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 Crusader. You insist on telling me what various books have written. I'm not concerned with that. The books were written by various PEOPLE. They are free to say whatever they want. Their writings simply express their own thought patterns. The muslim god as written may well be an evil god from our point of view.. So what? It was written by people, and may have very little to do what lies behind the mask. The evil that may be done from those writings is done by men, not their god. Why is that so hard to follow? Again, feel free to believe whatever you want. The catholic church is also free to deal with Mr Kerry however they want. That's different than trying to influence an election. While we're at it, the christian god is hardly a first god. He came from various sources. Zoroastrianism, for instance. Christ is a classic example of a dead and resurrected corn god. Again, so what? The point is there is no such thing as a christian, jewish, muslim, or tibetan god. They have all been filtered through human experience, and are representations of the basic ground of existence. WE cannot know the ultimate reality of god. Not you, not me, not the catholic church, and none of us have the right to tell others they have to behave according to our beliefs.

Posted by DLS 2004-07-23 7:23:43 PM|| 2004-07-23 7:23:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 "Allah" was not even Mohammed's FIRST god--that was Al-Raheem. That "god"--Al-Raheem is mentioned 51 times in the Quran and Hadith before "Allah" is transitioned in."

-Hate to split hairs Crusader (or defend Islam for that matter) but according to the "children of Israel" chapter in the Quran verse 110 > "Call him Allah or call him Ar-Rahman; whatever the name you call him by, all his names are beautiful."

>I think in northern Arab dialect at the time - Allah was the word. Southern Arabs preferred the latter Ar-Rahman which means 'merciful' from what I've gathered. The Muslims consider Allah the same God of Moses for what it's worth.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-23 7:28:23 PM|| 2004-07-23 7:28:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 Lh, you're so *not* preaching to the choir here! LOL
(BTW, didn't you tell us yesterday that non-Jews shouldn't comment about Judaism and to butt out and here you over at the Catholic thread?)
Being against abortion is virtually an article of faith in the Catholic Church, particularly to this Pope, as is any method of birth control, much less abortion that kills foetuses or partial birth abortion that kills babies who are viable outside the womb.
On the other hand, support for abortion is mandatory for Dimocrats and is like an article of faith with them.
(It's why they're losing the Hispanic vote who are primarily Catholic.)
This is a free country with separation of Church and State; if Kerry wanted to embrace views that conflicted with his faith, he could join another Church.
If his faith precluded his supporting abortion, he could vote his conscience.
John Kerry, in his infinite quest for power, has chosen to be true to neither his faith nor his politics.
It's called consistency, something he shows no signs of practicing, viz. his "I served in Vietnam" and I protested the war at the same time.

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-23 7:28:43 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-23 7:28:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 I'm w/LH on this one for his common sense sight of the slippery slope this presents. I also thinks he knows more about Catholicism then most of us Catholics really know about Judaism.

DLS> Nice rant.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-23 7:33:42 PM|| 2004-07-23 7:33:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#61
DLS:

"The point is there is no such thing as a christian, jewish, muslim, or tibetan god.

That's an absolutist statement. You don't believe in absolutes, remember?

"none of us have the right to tell others they have to behave according to our beliefs.

You are trying your hardest to make it out that I EVER said otherwise.

I have ONLY stated and will do so again that the Catholic church has the right to determine what its ground-rules are for both joining its congregation and for maintaining membership in good standing. To pretend that they LACK that authority would undermine the Church's very existance--in short order, everyone could claim to be "Catholic" with nary a Catholic to be found.

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 7:38:25 PM|| 2004-07-23 7:38:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 "I also thinks he knows more about Catholicism then most of us Catholics really know about Judaism."
You're probably trying to take a swipe at me, Jarhead, but I doubt that what you say is true and you have no real basis to make that statement.
For one thing, Lh doesn't seem aware of St. Paul's admonition in Scripture that no-one is to take Communion not being in a state of grace and with sin on one's heart and soul.
The Vatican has made it very clear that abortion is a sin.
Publicly backing abortion must as bad a sin or worse as it encourages others as well as implicating ones-self.
IMO, not just Kerry, but Ted Kennedy and all the other Catholic Democrat politicians (almost all of whom have backed on-demand abortion in legislation and regarding judicial nominees) have gotten a complete pass from their Church on this.
It's time the Church practice what it preaches literally.

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-23 7:45:17 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-23 7:45:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 jarhead:

Modern Muslims may consider lots of things so, but that they consider it so is not the same as making it true. Regarding the very same verse you cite, consider this commentary:

"Question: Explain the phrase, "no god but Allah"? Isn't "Allah" just another word for "God?"

Answer: The transliterated phrase from Arabic reads, âLa ilaha illAllah.â A word for word translation into English would read: La [no] ilaha [god] ill [except or but] Allah [Allah]. The important thing to note is that the word âAllahâ is a name and is not the word for god. If âAllahâ were the word for god, then the phrase would read, âthere is no allah but allah. Clearly it does not. The Qurâan itself claims that Allah is the personal name of the Islamic god: (017.110) âSay, Call Him Allah or call Him Ar-Rahman; whatever the name you call Him, all His names are beautiful.â If âAllahâ were the word for god, then Islamâs god is nameless. There is also no evidence that the word âAllahâ is a contraction of the words âal ilah,â which means, âthe god.â If it were, then again, the phrase would read, âthere is no allah but allah.â As part of the first âPillar of Islam,â this issue is critical as Islam claims that the God of the Bible (whose name is Yahweh) and Allah are one in the same and that we all, therefore, worship the same god.

There are also numerous references to "Allah" being the name of a pre-Mohammeden moon god.

The link: http://www.prophetofdoom.net/faqs2.html

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 7:51:47 PM|| 2004-07-23 7:51:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 "You're probably trying to take a swipe at me, Jarhead, but I doubt that what you say is true and you have no real basis to make that statement."

-actually, I wasn't trying to take a swipe at you. And I do have the basis to make the statement. He usually make more sense without making assumptions about my religion then I've seen most of the people on this sight make about his. Just because he may or may not know about St.Paul makes no difference to me, shit, I'd bet 50% of the Catholics who go to mass on Sunday have no clue about St.Paul. IMHO, & as I've said before the church is going to look as if it's playing politics on this one for all the reasons BH, DLS, LH, & I've stated, and I think it's going to bite them in the ass.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-23 7:54:41 PM|| 2004-07-23 7:54:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 It's not the Catholic Church's fault that the Democrats have made on-demand abortion their single most important issue.
The Church has had a stance for generations against birth control (Remember the rhythm method, before the Pill? Even that was banned by the Vatican.)
The creation of new life through inception has been considered to be God's Will for centuries and that hasn't changed, whereas the Dims have made Abortion their primary plank since Roe v. Wade in 1970.
Kerry is a hypocrite as are any other Dimocrats (or Republicans including Guiliani, Pataki and Ahnold) if they want to be practicing Catholics but support abortion.

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-23 8:02:30 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-23 8:02:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 DLS, Christ is a "corn god?"
How could he be a corn god if the West didn't even know about corn til white men came to the New World in the 17th Century and were introduced to it by the Indians?
You are engaging in the worst kind of agnostic moral equivalence and relativism about Religion.
Think and believe what you like, but you're wrong and Hell will be just as hot even if you try to get off eternal damnation by pleading that you gave all religions "equal time."

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-23 8:07:10 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-23 8:07:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 Crusader> we can split hairs all day about Allah. Also, the Quran is not in any real chronological order so it wouldn't surprise me if another word for the muslim god was used. We can even bring it home & talk about how the 5 Books of Moses in the old testament refer to a Jehova (meaning lord) & an Elohim (meaning God): so from your angle I guess they were talking about two different Gods?
There were also two rival temples - one in Judah, the other in Bethel. There are also two versions of many other stories that the perceptive reader of the O.T. may notice. Are we dealing with two accounts of the same story or two different stories merged into one? (Hat tip to Dimont). Maybe the same questions can be made of the Quran? (yeah, I know Mo-mo suposedly wrote the Quran while being illiterate - total bullshit I agree).

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-23 8:13:08 PM|| 2004-07-23 8:13:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 GJ, DLS is prolly referring to the common story line of a pseudo messianic god which was common in pre-christian pagan societies. There are some scholars who've made the argument that the Bible picked up some of it's story line from such prior beliefs.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-23 8:17:08 PM|| 2004-07-23 8:17:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 Jarhead:

*laughs* I totally agree with your Mo-mo comment--we should probably stop there! Have a good evening!

Posted by Crusader 2004-07-23 8:20:16 PM|| 2004-07-23 8:20:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 Thank you Jarhead. The term corn god is a general one used to describe the fertility god of planting peoples. The god is literally or figuratively killed at the beginning of the planting season to ensure the growth of the crops. It isn't about corn. To Greatest Liberation: I repeat my previous thoughts about fundamentalists: you can't talk to them. They "KNOW". Wow. Hell will be just as hot for me? As Mark Twain said, "Heaven for climate, hell for society'. Grow up. That kind of threat went out with the 19th centure.

Posted by DLS 2004-07-23 8:26:27 PM|| 2004-07-23 8:26:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 If the Catholic Church in Germany had said in the 1930's that Nazi Party members could not receive communion, would that have been a case of the "slippery slope"?

Posted by virginian 2004-07-23 8:38:52 PM|| 2004-07-23 8:38:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 Crusader> agreed. Have a good evening as well, & please say a prayer for your Agnostic-Catholic friend Jarhead - I can use all the help I can get :) This was good civil discourse RB style. I'd say that out of the pantheon of things to discuss we'd prolly find we agree on more things then we disagree on and if we do have differing views on a subject at least we are able to walk away during those disagreements w/respect for each other - hence, what's great about a lot of folks on this site and what separates most of us from the LLL.

DLS> no problem. I seem to recall the sumerians, sarmatians, and even the early Celts had a lot of these views. There's even some interesting reading on how St.Patrick supposedly put a stop to the Beltane fertility ritual, as a person of Irish descent - I think someone may have been hitting the sauce a little hard when they came up w/that one.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-23 8:40:59 PM|| 2004-07-23 8:40:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 DLS, the threat of Hell for sinners and those who have spurned God is very old (Who or what should grow up?)
Either you believe in God and Heaven and Hell or you don't.
Clearly, you don't.
Your choice.

And Jarhead, I'll pray for you, too.
But then I pray for all of our troops every night!:-)

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-07-23 11:36:43 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-23 11:36:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 Get over it,And get used to it!If this lying sack of stinking offal professes to be a faithful Catholic Christian,then he needs to cut his umbilical cord to the rest of the liberal running-dog filth he depends on for his backing and support.Who does he really work for? God, or the worldly powers of darkness in high places?I'm betting on the latter.

Posted by Cheemp Threemp7965 2004-09-30 12:21:34 AM|| 2004-09-30 12:21:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#75 Get over it,And get used to it!If this lying sack of stinking offal professes to be a faithful Catholic Christian,then he needs to cut his umbilical cord to the rest of the liberal running-dog filth he depends on for his backing and support.Who does he really work for? God, or the worldly powers of darkness in high places?I'm betting on the latter.

Posted by Cheemp Threemp7965 2004-09-30 12:22:04 AM|| 2004-09-30 12:22:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#76 Man what a lot of posts!
Well I am not a "Catholic." My protestant faiths denomination's doctrine got to be were I could no longer say I had an agreement with it or if it was even biblical anymore. It was watered down to standing for nothing but a liberal political agenda trying to pass itself of as "Christian" in my estimation. I picked up the phone and told the pastor to remove my leter (My declaration of membership) and the reason why.
I could not honestly attend the Church and support them anymore. Kerry needs the honesty of his convictions to do the same thing. But since he isn't honest he won't.
If the Catholic Church's leadership says you can't support abortion on demand and take communion then you except it and go along with it or leave.

Posted by Sock Pupet of Doom 2004-09-30 1:28:12 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-30 1:28:12 AM|| Front Page Top

01:28 Sock Pupet of Doom
00:22 Cheemp Threemp7965
00:21 Cheemp Threemp7965
15:07 Brett_the_Quarkian
12:39 Lucky
10:38 Aris Katsaris
10:24 MacNails
09:25 Anonymous5089
03:20 Zenster
02:39 Super Hose
00:44 Super Hose
00:42 Super Hose
00:40 Lucky
00:37 Lucky
00:34 Lucky
00:26 Old Patriot
00:21 .com
00:16 Old Patriot
00:04 Stephen
23:43 .com
23:36 GreatestJeneration
23:28 Lucky
23:28 Old Patriot
23:27 Zenster