quote: The Roman Catholic bishop of Colorado Springs has said Catholics should not receive Communion if they vote for politicians who support abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia and gay marriage.
Bishop Michael Sheridan said voters should receive the sacrament only if they recant and repent in the confessional. However, he said no one will be enforcing the rule in the Communion line.
While several U.S. bishops have issued similar warnings to Catholic lawmakers who defy church teaching in policymaking, Sheridan is believed to be the first to expand that directive to voters this election year.
I've heard of church officials recommending someone for the members to vote for, but saying that someone can't receive a rite because of who they vote for goes a bit too far.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it comes close to violating church/state as the quoted person claims. It is interesting, however, that they don't extend the ban to politicians with other anti-Catholic records such as supporting the death penalty or the war in Iraq. Different sects of Christianity have been obsessed with sex for a long time, but American Catholics are definitely facing a crisis of identity (better than 50% of seminary students survey as gay, for example).
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if he's good friends with the bishop in Lincoln, Nebraska. He makes statements like that too.
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You need to understand the Catholic faith a bit more before you make such pronouncements. The Catholic Church has no dogmatic statement on capital punishment. The Bishops and the Pope, speaking as spiritual leaders, have condemned it. However, the Pop has not issued a statement from the chair that Catholics must oppose it.
The Church's teaching on abortion (and stem cell research for the same reason) is official Church dogma. The teaching is not that abortion is immoral, but that abortion is functionally murder. Therefore, supporting discrimination as to who receives the protection of murder statutes is an outright denial of this dogma. Another part of official Church dogma is that people not in full communion with the Church should not receive communion.
You say it's "going to far," but the Bishop said he wasn't going to enforce it. In other words, he reminded Catholics of two important tenets of their faith and told them they should follow them. That's a spiritual leader's job.
Dag, I'm an estranged Catholic, but I'm under the impression that homophobia's a longstanding tenet in Church dogma. Would you agree that if this bishop told homosexuals they can't receive Mass, he's just serving his role as a spiritual leader?
By the way, I need to tap that post you made in response to me oh-so-long ago. Since it looks like I seem to have a day off today, I may actually get the chance to do so.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, that reminds me, I meant to add that I don't see how the gay-marriage stance falls into the abortion category, as long as the person supporting equal civil marriage rights differentiates between religious marriage.
Edit: And, no - a Bishop telling homosexuals not to attend Mass would not be properly serving as a spiritual leader. In fact, I've never heard of anyone being told not to attend Mass.
posted
Oh, and "homophobia's a longstanding tenet in Church dogma" is just not true. However, this brings up the entire discussion we haven't finished, as well as misapplication of the word "homophobia" to a situation it's not necessarily suited to, so I'll delay discussion until you respond to that post.
posted
I was under the impression that Dagonee and Lalo are the same person. In this thread, you don't appear to be. Have I been mistaken?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the cathoilc church, is there a difference between attending mass and taking communion (I think that's what it's called)? I mean, would it be acceptable for someone to attend mass even though they are not supposed to take communion?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets see, one's a rabid young liberal proad and boastful of his sexuality, the others a thoughtful moderate, former conservative, in law school with a fiance.
Sounds like the same people to me.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the cathoilc church, is there a difference between attending mass and taking communion (I think that's what it's called)? I mean, would it be acceptable for someone to attend mass even though they are not supposed to take communion?
Absolutely - in fact, you're supposed to if for some reason you're not in a state to receive communion. For example, if you've commited grave sin, you're not supposed to receive communion until you go to confession for it. However, being in that state does not relieve you of the obligation to attend Mass. The rules on Communion are strict because Catholics believe in transubstantiation, that is, that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. This doesn't imply a physical transformation, but a substantive one. People who are not receiving Communion are still participating in the sacrifice of Mass (I think - I'm a little fuzzy on that part of it).
fugu13: When did I lose my conservative credentials?
BTW, the Crypto API wasn't available - they said they could reconfigure to make it available, but I just decided to go with a dictionary lookup of passwords bearing no relation to the username, and hence unpredictable. This only worked because I know how big the table's going to get - it wouldn't work in true production environments. Thanks for the suggestions.
posted
Whoa, when did this become dogma? Just a couple years ago, the only things other than the Nicene Creed that's dogma are the Marian beliefs.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The leaders of the Reformation admitted the dogma of original sin, but at present there are many Protestants imbued with Socinian doctrines whose theory is a revival of Pelagianism.
Further, dogma is not that narrowly defined:
quote:Well, a "dogma" is a divinely revealed teaching. It may be defined solemnly as was done in the case of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary, or it can be defined "in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life" (John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary s.v. "Dogma"). As Hardon notes, a dogma is a "[d]octrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation" (Ibid.). And it is clear that the grave immorality of the direct and voluntary taking of an innocent human life--which includes deliberate or procured abortion--is a divinely revealed teaching:
"This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium."
John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), section 62.3 (i.e., 3rd paragraph in section 62).
Third, the Marian beliefs are at the center of Church opposition to abortion. The belief that the stain of original sin was removed from Mary at conception requires that conception be the starting point of personhood.
posted
Backing up again, I think Dag's first point is that there is a difference between saying "can't" and saying "shouldn't"
As for the prohibition on abortion being dogmatic... that might be a stretch, but the catechism does link abortion to the murder commandment whereas I think the death penalty stricture is more of a "at this time we feel it is inappropriate". Do you have a copy of Humanae Vitae, handy, Mack? you could probably answer your own question on the church's teaching better than I if you do.
What is and isn't dogmatic to Catholics is a tough subject to crack, at times.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between criticizing something and profane (even pretty cleaned up profane) name-calling.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also legitimate dissent. And that sort of cleaned of "profane" is in line with stuff like freaking or frigging or what have you.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you or the bishop had the slightest clue as to Catholic Doctrine, you would know that clergy are the servants of the Church, not its masters. The Church is the laity/membership. Servants do not order the Church about.
Contrary to CardinalRatsinger's pronouncement, the Church is a democracy. Under God's Will, not the hierarchy's. The "divine right of kings and bishops" has long been repudiated. And if certain bishops wanna push for a Schism by trying to usurp the rights of the Church members: servants are replaceable. They'll find themselves out of the RomanCatholicChurch, leading a small band of heretics.
posted
That actually happened to a bishop who refused to follow Vatican II, Lefevbre was his name. He took a good number of followers with him.
The catholic hierarchy does have a history of going against the laity, even against specially appointed commissions. One such group was appointed after Vatican II to study the issue of artificial birth control. This group presented the recommendation to allow the use of artificial birth control by the Catholic laity--but the Pope decided against it.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you or the bishop had the slightest clue as to Catholic Doctrine, you would know that clergy are the servants of the Church, not its masters. And the Church is the laity/membership. Servants do not order the Church about.
Slightest clue? The Catholic Church is not a democracy on matters of morality, nor is it a democracy when it comes to the sacraments. Priests take very serious vows to bestow sacraments according to the teachings of the Church.
posted
What part of The Catholic Church is not a democracy on matters of morality, nor is it a democracy when it comes to the sacraments. Priests take very serious vows to bestow sacraments according to the teachings of the Church do you not understand?
quote:You need to understand the Catholic faith a bit more before you make such pronouncements.
Yes. Please understand that the Catholic Church loves money and likes to fancy itself god, sometimes it even enjoys calling people witches and then murdering 300,000 people in the name of peace.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first one is a fact, albeit a pretty antiquated one, but the last two seem like opinions of the fact-giver. Unless, of course, ther is significant evidence to the contrary.
quote: Priests take very serious vows to bestow sacraments according to the teachings of the Church do you not understand?
Exactly. For the Catholic Church, it is all about the teachings of the CHURCH, not the Teachings of Jesus Christ.
I mean come on, The Church allowed thousands of Child molesters to Preach, Teach and receive communion, but if I believe that condoms can be useful in a society of 280,000,000 people I'm banned?
posted
I don't see where having a lot of money means you love it. My mom had ten kids, does that means she loves them more than someone who has struggled with infertility for years?
The clergy are the shepherds to a flock. A flock cannot function democratically on its own. Is there a church that does not have either a claim of direct revelation from God or specially trained clergy?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no, Dagonee. The Catholic Church is a single entity, possessing all of the traits of its worst members throughout its entire history and none of the traits of its best. Clearly no good the Church has ever accomplished can be acknowledged because all of its members, poor parish priests, missionaries, nuns and all, are only in it for the money and power. Duh.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The good that the church's members--and even the church--still stands. There are individual priests and monks and nuns who are amazing people.
But in terms of the hierarchy--something nasty happened. The child molestation scandal, the threats of denying communion, the end of dialogue about women in the priesthood or even diaconate, ignoring the panel that it appointed about the path to take on artificial birth control...and others.
In Massachusetts, they're closing eighty some-odd parishes in order to cover settlements from the molestation lawsuits.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay so here's the problem with the statement as I understand it from the article. The bishop said that catholics who vote for elected officials who support stem cell research should be excommunicated. The reason for this most likely has to do with the church's pro-life stance. However that means you have to vote for the other guy. Now an interesting trend that you might note is that often people who are against abortion and things like stem cell research are for things like the death penalty. And while this might not be the case everywhere it is frequently true. So with this statement, as I understand it from the atricle, (I should find the statement) he's not saying you shouldn't vote for people who support the death penalty. But really the reasons for not voting for these people is the same.
Generally I have lots of problems with Bishops making large blanket statements saying things like if you belong to group X you are excommunicated. I understand that they are trying to educate the members of the church on the teachings of the church. However, it always seems like perhaps statements like these get people defensive and do more harm than the good they could do. And sin is a very personal thing. It's basically defined as turning away by choice from God's grace. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm I don't like statements that says you're a sinner but I don't know you and I don't know your circumstances or your heart but you you're definately a sinner.
I'm comparing this statement to the one made by the bishop in Lincoln that is posted here:
Although, this list seems shoter than i recall it being.
edit: I realized I should note that I did read about the chruch not having officially condemned the death penalty. However, I feel that life is life and if one is going to say that people shouldn't kill people it really should pretty much be fair across the board.
quote:Generally I have lots of problems with Bishops making large blanket statements saying things like if you belong to group X you are excommunicated.
No one has said this.
quote:I realized I should note that I did read about the chruch not having officially condemned the death penalty. However, I feel that life is life and if one is going to say that people shouldn't kill people it really should pretty much be fair across the board.
Please tell me you can recognize a moral difference between infanticide and the execution of a criminal after due process of law. Not that a reasonable person can't decide both should be outlawed, but that it's possible to be against one and not the other.
posted
If not for the Catholic Church, we'd all be homosexuals!
The Holy Roman Catholic Church is the only thing that stands between humanity and the ULTIMATE EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not if you believe in the sanctity of life. It isn't consistent to be against abortion and FOR the death penalty. Life is life and we aren't supposed to judge.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
