April 23rd 2004, 03:13 PM #1
Vatican Speaks on Pro-Choice Catholic Politicians
I am not Catholic, however, this looks like a challenge for those who claim to be Catholic to walk the walk or accept the consequences. You can't claim to be in the RCC if you don't adhere to their teachings. Looks like truth in advertising to me."Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed" - Psalm 139:16 (NRSV)
April 23rd 2004, 04:14 PM #2
Historically, there had been a lot more independence of the AmChurch from Rome.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the reason why the faith stayed more strong among Catholics in the US than in Italy.
April 23rd 2004, 04:20 PM #3
this could get interesting...
April 23rd 2004, 07:43 PM #4
I would image, if totally implemented, a great percentage of Catholics would be driven from the church. Maybe then there would be enough priests to go around.The value and naturalness of homosexuality must be as scientifically clear as the fact that the earth is round. Then the acceptance of homosexuality will not crumble when the political pendulum next swings - Joan Roughgarden
A society that believes the body is somehow diseased, painful, sinful or wrong is going to create social institutions that wreak destruction on the body of the earth itself - Paula Gunn Allen
April 23rd 2004, 07:44 PM #5Originally posted by Bob Jenkins
April 23rd 2004, 10:43 PM #6
I am decidedly pro-life and honestly wonder how one can claim to be Christian and pro-choice at the same time; however I did not come to the conclusion of when life begins and Who is the Author of life because the RCC told me so. I came to that conclusion by seeing what happens to women who are convinced either by boyfriends or "well-meaning" family to abort their babies. I came to that conclusion during a very long night after my best friend had been coerced by her boyfriend to abort her child. Nothing I could say or do was consolation for her, nothing could stop her tears, I had nothing to offer to take away the cold realization of what she had done. She was not the only one I knew who had been through this but her story was the one I saw close up. Another of my friends is still- 20 years later- dealing with the guilt and grief of abortion. The sad part is these young women seldom "choose" abortion of their own accord- there are boyfriends and parents in the background twisting the screws in many instances it is not her choice at all.
When I lost my first child to miscarriage I mourned the loss of a life- a child I would never see or hold. That was painful enough and I blamed myself even though it was likely nothing I did- I can't imagine the pain and guilt not only of the loss- but knowing you authorized it to happen and you are responsible- I know I would have a difficult time living with the guilt.
The RCC is finally saying "we are pro-life and we are serious about it." There is nothing wrong for demanding standards and guidelines of those who want to claim being a part of the RCC, in fact the RCC isn't terribly encouraging of independent thought on the part of its lay people. I can't claim to agree with everything the RCC teaches either (which is why I am not Catholic) but I don't pretend to be Catholic for political gain. The Vatican isn't letting politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths, which I agree with. If a pro-choice political position is incompatible with Catholicism (and I'm pretty sure, they set the record straight- it is) then you are either pro-choice or Catholic but not both.
I agree the RCC may lose membership, but it's not all about numbers. Every church has its "pew warmers"- and every church has those who take their faith seriously and try to adhere to the standards that their church upholds. It simply means what the RCC has taught all along: agree with us or you are not Catholic (or you are living in a state of mortal or unconfessed sin) so you may not commune in a Catholic church. This is not a new teaching, just reinforcing what the RCC has believed all along."Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed" - Psalm 139:16 (NRSV)
April 24th 2004, 10:40 AM #7Originally posted by Love-Warrior
Originally posted by elysian
in fact the RCC isn't terribly encouraging of independent thought on the part of its lay people
I for one wouldn't mind seeing a mass excommunication of guys like Kerry and Kennedy, unless they get their act together. It won't happen though. Pope John Paul II has a driving theme to his pontificate: Christian Unity. He has done so much to encourage ecumenical dialogue with our Orthodox and Protestant bretheren. This is what make dealing with this liberalizing trend in the Church in America and Western Europe so difficult.
We are at a stage in history not unlike that set for the Reformation. AmChurch's bishops wicked negligence clerical abuse for decades is shameful and scandalizing. Lay Catholics are not totally unjustified in seeing their bishops as corrupt. Couple with corruption with theological dissent and you have a dangerous situation. Liberal Catholic theologians, clerics and laymen would like to see a reversal of teachings on such things as abortion, birth control, homosexuality, women clergy and much else. The hierachy, by its own corruption, has lost the moral authority in the eyes of its flock to teach on these issues. Decisive condemnation, including threats of excommunication, will be seen as a heavyhanded powerplay by a monolithic, hypocritical, authoritarian instituion. It could lead to schism. And this is why the Church has been so slow and careful in dealing with these liberal trends. The misconduct of American bishops has put Rome in quite a quandry in dealing with AmChurch. They have to tread lightly, or risk another Reformation, and further fracturing of the Body of Christ.Salve Regina, mater misericordiae: vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve. Ad te clamamus exsules filii Hevae. Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes in hac lacrimarum valle. Eia, ergo, advocata nostra, illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nos converte. Et Iesum, benedictum fructum ventris tui, nobis post hoc exsilium ostende.
O clemens, O pia, O dulcis Virgo Maria. Amen.
Ora pro nobis, sancta Dei Genetrix.
Ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi.
April 24th 2004, 11:41 AM #8
In fairnessOriginally posted by romepunk
Originally posted by romepunk
Originally posted by romepunk
Originally posted by romepunk
Here's where you can help make it happen. Even Protestants like me can sign the petition, amicus curiae or as a "friend of the court".
Originally posted by romepunk
Last edited by elysian; April 24th 2004 at 11:46 AM."Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed" - Psalm 139:16 (NRSV)
April 24th 2004, 01:11 PM #9RomePunk:Christinianity is dying in Europe in all its forms. It's hardly a Catholic phenomenon. Protestant communions are stronger in America as well. However, The Vatican itself is quite faithful, and very conservative. And AmChurch's independent streak only hurts us. Catechesis was horrible in through the 60's 70's, and 80's. It's just now improving. Rome is the only place that seemed to understand that Vatican II was not a modernist reformation.
But that hardly contradicts my contention that the AmChurch's independence helps to explain why Catholicism is stronger here. In general, Catholicism tends to be stronger whereever it is a minority religion or has been historically persecuted or sided with the historically persecuted(like with Ireland).
Explain to me what Catechesis was?
As I understand it, that within RCC, there is an official position and then there are a number of semi-autonomous positions. And that part of the corruption of the AmChurch stems from its extreme hierarchical concentration with the official conservative-position holders holding and maintaining a predominance in the top positions.
That would indicate that it is they, not the liberals, who bear more culpability for the recent abuses of authority by the RCChurch in the US.
Saying that all Christians should be dedicated to making all abortions illegal again sets up the dogmatic tradition of viewing human life/being as beginning at conception as essential, when its not. It also goes against the separation of Church and State understood correctly as referring to their autonomy, wherein believers can seek to change laws based on their religiously-based convictions, but must be willing to work within the democratic process(and translate their political views into more secular terms to frame them within the public square).
Similarly, with homosexuality, we can't let another Galileo get pulled on the Church. We have to critically take into account the fact that one's homosexual orientation, unlike one's lifestyle, is not chosen and is likely due to the hormonal balance that was formed while we were fetuses. If our positions dismiss this fact then we will lose credibility as we elevate tradition to the same level as scripture or misinterpret scripture as being a blue-print for right conduct in every conceivable ethical situation.
Last edited by Da Lone-Warrior; April 24th 2004 at 01:23 PM.
April 24th 2004, 03:07 PM #10
Copyright © 2004 MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
April 24th 2004, 07:59 PM #11Originally posted by elysianWe believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light,true God from true God....
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father,
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
My Creed is Nicene
April 24th 2004, 09:59 PM #12
I found out when I was seventeen that my mother was pregnant with a fourth child. My third younger sister was then born on my 18th birthday. We have a very close relationship and my relationships with my other sisters improved after she was born.
When our parents first told us about the pregnancy, we weren't allowed to tell anyone else, because we were afraid for a miscarriage. I found out that some years earlier my mom had gotten pregnant before and then miscarried. After, my third sister was born, my mom got her utopian cords tied because my family couldn't afford yet another child. If the earlier pregnancy hadn't miscarried, my mom probably would have gotten her utopian cords tied then, but because of the miscarriage I now have my sister Cassandra who is the joy of my life.
Given that families do try and limit the number of children that they have, when I consider the staggering number of abortions, I have to also consider how many of the children that they had later might not have ever come into existence if their parents hadn't decided to have abortions earlier on.
April 24th 2004, 11:16 PM #13
Vatican: Catholic Priests Should Deny Communion to Pro-Abortion Politicians
by Steven Ertelt
23 April 2004
[It's the height of absurdity for Kerry et al. to claim that the Church is exceeding its mandate. No one forces these professing Catholics to join the church, and if they violate its rules, they have no moral case to whinge if the church excommunicates them. As Elysian says, so what if the pro-baby-butchery Dem politicians leave the church officially -- they have already left spiritually. Typical of DLW to defend radical baby-hating obsessively pro-abortion Dems and side with atheistics. :soc:]
Vatican City (LifeNews.com) -- A leading Catholic official said on Friday that Catholic priests should withhold communion from politicians who refuse to recant their pro-abortion positions. Meanwhile, presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry says religion and politics shouldn't mix.
Cardinal Francis Arinze spoke at a news conference Friday on the Catholic Church's efforts to keep Mass sacred. Regarding communion, a new document says those who know they are guilty of "grave sin" should attend confession prior to taking communion.
When asked whether that meant Kerry should not be allowed to take communion, Arinze said the church's position was clear and Catholic bishops in the U.S. should decide the matter, according to an AP report.
"The norm of the church is clear,'' he said. "The Catholic Church exists in the United States and there are bishops there. Let them interpret it.''
But when asked about "unambiguously pro-abortion" Catholic politicians, Arinze said such officials are "not fit" to receive communion.
"Yes," Arinze responded. "If the person should not receive it, then it should not be given. Objectively, the answer is there."
Responding to Arinze, Kerry spokesman David Wade reiterated Kerry's position that there should be a separation of church and state.
"The decisions he will make as president will be guided by his obligation to all the people of our country and to the Constitution of the United States," Wade said in a statement. "Every American -- whether they be Jewish, Catholic, Protestant or any other faith -- must believe their president is representing them."
Kerry is slated to hold a rally today with leaders of abortion advocacy groups in anticipation of their pro-abortion march on Sunday.
"The Church's custom shows that it is necessary for each person to examine himself at depth and that anyone who is conscious of grave sin should not celebrate or receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession," the new document says.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington is heading up a task force for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on how to handle politicians like Kerry whose views run counter to the church.
St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke said he would offer the politician a blessing rather than giving him full communion and Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston has told Catholic elected officials who are pro-abortion that they should not be receiving communion.
Kerry drew criticism for taking communion at a Catholic church in Boston on Easter.
Arinze is a Nigerian who has been mentioned as a possible successor to Pope John Paul II.
April 24th 2004, 11:25 PM #14Originally posted by Love-Warrior
Originally posted by Love-Warrior
Similarly they should not take the word of an economist like DLW or gay scientists like LeVay with an agenda to reinterpret the Bible's teaching on sexual morality. Jesus Himself affirmed that marriage was for a man and a woman (Matthew 19:3-6).
April 25th 2004, 12:44 AM #15
...and this just in...
VATICAN CITY (AP) - In a follow-up to his announcement yesterday, a top Vatican cardinal said that priests must not allow Catholic politicians who work or campaign on the Sabbath to light any of those little magic candles you see in some Catholic churches.
Cardinal Francis Arinze spoke at a news conference to launch a new Vatican directive clamping down on disobedient Catholic politicians he said will no longer be given access to any Catholic magic.
"No more are we gonna allow politicians who don't do exactly what I say god wants them to do, to have access to any of our Catholic mojo", said an obviously perturbed Cardinal Arinze. "This means no more communion wafers, no more holy water, no praying to the virgin. Why I don't think they should even be allowed to sniff the magic incense we wave around during Mass".
When asked if these Catholic politicians would be asked to leave the church the Cardinal replied "Please..., were right in the middle of a fund drive and an election year. And unlike everyone else, these guys have to make their tax returns public, which show their charitable contributions. We're not that foolish. They can still come to church and give us money, but they will just have to sit in the back pews, and we can't have the father bless them on the way out."
...and in other news, John Kerry announced that if elected President, he would consider passing a law not allowing any Catholic Priests, Bishops, Cardinals or Rooks the right to vote, if it can be shown that they knowingly covered up, or looked the other way, during the countless child sex abuse scandals in their diocese...
By EvoUK in forum Civics 101Replies: 2Last Post: June 11th 2007, 01:41 AM
By Jack777 in forum Civics 101Replies: 11Last Post: February 28th 2005, 03:28 PM
By Socrates in forum Civics 101Replies: 49Last Post: December 25th 2003, 10:23 PM
By AtheistArchon in forum Civics 101Replies: 29Last Post: December 3rd 2003, 03:00 AM
By Dr T in forum Comparative Religions 101Replies: 0Last Post: October 31st 2003, 08:01 AM