| 0 |
Subject: Catholics being denied communion for support Dems?
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [194141614] Fri, May 16, 2008, 23:51
Just came across this somewhat disturbing piece in Commonweal
The calcifying of the Catholic Church around the abortion side of their pro-life stance is not new. As is their relative silence, in the US, on the death penalty. But denying communion for Catholics who support Democratic candidates seems to be using communion as a political weapon. There is a real tax liability, at minimum, for the Church, if true. |
| 1 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, May 17, 2008, 07:23
|
This isn't all that new, either. I thought I recalled Cardinal O'Connor or Cardinal Egan threatening to deny comunion from Giuliani as mayor but I can't find a story about it.
|
| 2 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, May 17, 2008, 09:56
|
There would be a big difference between denying communion to Guiliani and doing so to someone who voted for him, I would think. That was my first take. The more I look at that first sentence the less convincing it is.
|
| 3 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sat, May 17, 2008, 10:10
|
#2: That was my take as well. Although the action is clearly limited to those "squeaky wheels" it seems pretty clear that this second-tier denial of communion takes it much farther.
I do know of American cardinals who said they would deny communion to John Kerry and other Democratic pro-life politicians, but don't know of any who actually did.
|
| 4 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sat, May 17, 2008, 10:15
|
There are no tax consequences so long as the denial is issue related.
I support the denial to politcians whose public positions are directly contrary to church teachings. I thought Guiliani was divorced, anyway?
Denying communion to people for general support of a particular candidate is problematic, at least.
|
| 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 59422179
Sat, May 17, 2008, 10:23
|
Denying communion to people for general support of a particular candidate is problematic, at least.
Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make.
|
| 6 | Jag
ID: 28457122
Sat, May 17, 2008, 17:46
|
I know this sounds bad, because I am pro choice, but if this helps keep a liberal Democrat out of office, I am glad it is happening. I know it is wrong and would be furious if it happen to the other side, but I am pushing 50 and don't have time to see the country try to recovery after a Carter-like administration.
|
| 8 | bibA
ID: 494431612
Sat, May 17, 2008, 18:46
|
Jag - Maybe it would just be best for the country to put most of the ardently liberal politicians, and many likeminded citizens, in jail for a few years.
Or, if a left wing zealot such as Obama were to be elected, possibly a military coup backed by Christians could put someone worthy, like Bush or Cheney, into the White House.
For the sake of us over 50, the country may just need to be protected from itself. Surely everyone can see that the country is incapable of recovering from the consequences of an Obama victory. Look what the resulted in 1980. Have we ever recovered?
Why stop with the church making such momentous decisions for us?
|
| 9 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sun, May 18, 2008, 07:01
|
Considering we have a secret ballot in this country are we even discussing a real issue?
How would they know you had voted for a pro-abortion candidate unless you upped the ante and became in effect an activist by advertising it?
|
| 10 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sun, May 18, 2008, 07:06
|
The calcifying of the Catholic Church - PD
Fascinating use of the term. Could it be that you are so blindly in love with change for change' sake that you would not be happy unless they turned everything they had ever stood for on it's head?
Just why do liberals hate backbone so intensely? Jealosy? Lotta calcium in those backbones.
|
| 11 | Taxman
ID: 22192520
Sun, May 18, 2008, 08:08
|
This liberal hates being hated, cast as unamerican and having christianity stuffed down my throat, but accept and promote the right of the conservative and otherwise brains to espouse positions contrary to mine.
That doesn't require backbone, but does make us different.
|
| 12 | Jag
ID: 28457122
Sun, May 18, 2008, 11:38
|
I have no idea what Taxman is saying.
|
| 13 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sun, May 18, 2008, 21:56
|
For a second there I thot he was gonna stand up for backbones.
|
| 14 | G
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Sun, May 18, 2008, 22:04
|
No human can prevent another human from taking communion. The Bible indicates over and over only God knows what is in the hearts of man so I am not sure where the Catholic Church gets off thinking they control this ceremony. Heck even Judas was allowed to take part in communion.
|
| 15 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sun, May 18, 2008, 22:07
|
Hard to see how catholics deal with other catholics involves forcing anything down Taxman's throat. Is he catholic?
|
| 16 | Perm Dude
ID: 524231723
Sun, May 18, 2008, 22:26
|
#10: I'm not in favor of change. I'm in favor of dialogue. It is one reason I think the doctrine of infallability is a cancer to the Church--saying, essentially, that we no longer have to dialogue, pray for guidance, or continue to look at a particular issue deadens that issue to Christ's continued intercession. [This puts me squarely at odds with my Church (que Toral's moralizing post here). But I've given a heck of a lot of thought, prayer, and research on infallibility, and I'm just not yet able to find it to be a loving, Christ-centered teaching.]
When it comes to the pro-life issue, this calcification causes the Church to be anti-abortion (which is pretty much, but not entirely, consistent with the Church's pro-life message) and to ignore the death penalty (which is strongly inconsistent with Church teaching).
Anything which causes Catholics to abandon Church teachings is an opportunity for more prayerful dialogue, not less.
|
| 17 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sun, May 18, 2008, 22:35
|
PD-because the Church doesn't use equal empahsis or energy on abortion and the death penalty doesn't mean they've abandoned one. My church certainly hasn't acquieced or accepted the death penalty; the Vatican hasn't. What abandonment do you mean?
The fact is that abortion requires more attention because it occurs exponentially more often and it's victims are infintely more vunerbale and deserving of protection.
|
| 18 | Perm Dude
ID: 524231723
Sun, May 18, 2008, 22:41
|
I don't have a problem with that MBJ, so much as Catholics themselves (including leaders in the Church, like those referred to in the link in post 0) seemingly requiring GOP membership as a sign of Catholic political validity.
Doing so makes Santorum Catholics the norm at many parishes (Santorum, you might recall, explained away his support for the death penalty by saying that he "respectfully disagreed with the Pope's opinion.").
|
| 19 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sun, May 18, 2008, 22:42
|
I'd agree with you that the modern notion of infallability is wrong headed; given that it's almost never been used, I don't think I'd call it a cancer though. I think it is out of line both with the scripture and with Catholic tradition.
|
| 20 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sun, May 18, 2008, 22:48
|
Santorum can explain what he wants; I don't recall any support from the Church for that position. You seem to think that it's hypocritical or inconsistent for the Churchnot to publically air it's opposition to abortion and the death penalty to exactly the same degree ; I just disagree. For the Church they are evils on different planes of magnitude.
|
| 21 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, May 19, 2008, 18:03
|
Denial of communion to Kmiec was contrary to Canon law?
|
| 22 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, May 19, 2008, 18:08
|
I shouldn't have used that "?". It seems pretty clear that the minister had no right to deny Kmiec communion.
|
| 23 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Mon, May 19, 2008, 18:53
|
Does anyone hear think that God REALLY cares if somebody missed communion under these circumstances and will certainly hold that against him on judgement day? Who is dumb enough to think that God is bound by some ceremony and cannot and will not take other things into account?
If I was rejected communion I'd have to laugh. I'd just have to because the priest just made a bigger boo-boo than I could by judging.
|
| 24 | Perm Dude
ID: 6411911
Mon, May 19, 2008, 19:16
|
It is more than "missing" communion. For Catholics this is the high point of the Mass, the ability to enter into the Eucharist. I certainly can't expect a non-Catholic to fully understand the importance of taking communion, but there is really is no need to try to minimize it.
|
| 25 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Mon, May 19, 2008, 19:37
|
For Catholics this is the high point of the Mass, the ability to enter into the Eucharist. I certainly can't expect a non-Catholic to fully understand the importance of taking communion, but there is really is no need to try to minimize it.
Do you think God is unable to see beyond an unjust situation?
I get that it's a big deal to Catholics and I can see why some people would be offended by this. I just don't think the person denied communion has anything to worry about spiritually as far as this specific issue is concerned because God is not limited to a ceremony whether it be a Catholic one or a Born Again Evangelical one.
In relation to the power of Allmighty God all things are minimized whether it be your opinion or mine. He is capable to see what's in your heart and isn't fooled by ceremonies.
|
| 27 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Mon, May 19, 2008, 22:19
|
I just don't think the person denied communion has anything to worry about spiritually as far as this specific issue is concerned because God is not limited to a ceremony whether it be a Catholic one or a Born Again Evangelical one.
That's your interpretation. You can't expect other religions to be the least bit concerned with what qualifies for you as a matter of spiritual concern. For most Catholics, the Eucharist is absolutely not just ceremony.
|
| 28 | Perm Dude
ID: 47047238
Sat, Jan 24, 2009, 15:45
|
Dunno where to put this, but I'll plop it in here:
Pope brings back ultra-conservative bishops including a Holocaust denier.
Ironically, Pope Benedict seems to be turning back the clock on the Church by denying Vatican II did anything. Peas in a pod.
Bishop Williamson, in particular, should never be allowed to be a teacher in the Catholic Church. I have no problem with the efforts to bring back into the fold of the church members who have gone their own way, particularly if their disagreements with the Church aren't based upon strict doctrinal issues. But the Church doesn't need a Holocaust denier, particularly given the way this Pope has mishandled RC/Jewish relations.
|
| 29 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Jul 02, 2009, 19:53
|
Douglas Kmiec gets a Malta assignment from Obama.
Payback time, it looks like. I dunno--I think I'd still rather have Communion.
|
| 30 | nerveclinic
ID: 586221415
Tue, Jul 14, 2009, 16:22
|
So the punishment is, I don't get to walk down an aisle in front of a mob, walk up to a celbant male in a strange robe,(chuckle) (except for the child molesters) a robe like that of a magician, or court jester, or diva of some sort, while heavy incense wafts in the air, and have him put a piece of bread, compressed bread, onto my extended tongue?
That's what I am missing?
Hmmm, gonna have to think about that one.
I presume I am allowed to comment irrevantly since I was raised a (now long reformed) Catholic.
Free your mind.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|