Catholics still are not allowed to join the Masons. That was cleared up by Cardinal Ratzinger in November 1993 by the **Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ** http://www.newadvent.org/docs/df83ma.htm
The basis for this is the Church’s belief that Freemasonry teaches a naturalistic religion that espouses indifferentism, the position that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion.
All the more reason I pretty much stopped going to church.
Sadly, enough, 
Polycarp says:
“Begging your pardon here, but most preists I know are quite wealthy and live in very nice rectories.”
Yes, that’s true. I also know of priests in less affluent parishes that depend upon parishoners for such basics as new socks (Oakland, CA priests in Hispanic parishes).
The Catholic church is complicated - that ‘free will’ thing keeps getting in the way. My grandmother was given absolution by a priest during WWII for birth control when her husband returned on a three day leave. My Dad was given permssion to refuse medical intervention before he passed away. A cousin was given permission for an abortion when her pregnancy tests revealed that she also had cancer and was headed for death if she did not receive chemotherapy which would have killed the foetus. A priest allowed a suicide (homosexual student) to have a Catholic burial despite church regulations.
I am no longer a practicing Catholic despite 16 years of Catholic education, but I am still amazed by the ignorance of others regarding Catholic practices. Like a child who defends an alcoholic parent, I find myself defending the Catholic church. Go figure.
The best statement on this issue, again comes from the U.S. Catholic bishops. The document is called Faithful Citizenship.
Although individual priests have stated (falsely, IMHO), that one can not ever vote for a pro choice candidate. The bishops have not explicitly said that. There are a spectrum of issues that the bishops have requested Catholics to consider at the ballot box. I agree with Bricker, that the church teaches that the right to life is a “primary” right…and that other rights flow from that right into a Consistent Ethic of Life that gives dignity to the poor and disenfranchised…the eldery…and other at risk groups.
In the complicated world of democratic politics, that doesn’t always translate into “the pro life candidate is automatically the better candidate” then. For example…although candidates may self identify as “pro life” to attract a political base…they may not actually accomplish anything in that area.
Regardless of who Catholics vote for…I DO think that they are called to push for social change in a variety of areas, including the abortion arena.
Hmmm. Apparently, my mistake. I have seen several cases of Catholics receiving permission to join the Masons; the linked document makes it clear that even the local Ordinary does not have the right to give such permission.
I’ll have to look at this a little more, but it sure looks like I was off base here…
Thanks for the correction!
Thanks for the link. I still think, then, that I’ve voted the right way… 
That is not outside the norm for Catholicism, anyway. As early as the 1950s, Pope Pius XII looked over the emerging state of medical science and declared that it was not required to use extraordinary means simply to prolong life. Euthanasia is forbidden, but plugging people into machines is not required.
I find it curious that people complain that the RCC props itself up as the “only true church”. Well of course they do. They were the original church founded by Peter. So the official doctrine has to say that. Would you have it say “well we are a good church but nothing special, If you don’t like us then shop around” ? Now priest will tell you differently, the priestly phrase is “I know a lot of good people at the ______ church or temple”. we have interfaith services at holidays and I dont think we are progressive. So that complaint isnt a very good reason to quit the church.
I do have a question about the “southern Baptist” . How could someone belong to a church that was formed because they wouldn’t vote against slavery. I mean its not a blight on their history , its the reason they exist.
Similar question about the Church of England. Wasn’t it started because King Henry VIII got tired of his wife and wanted another and the church wouldn’t annul his marriage.
lets get some of my ignorance out of the way.
justinh-the Eastern Orthodox, Antioch and possibly the Coptic churches may take issue with the Catholic church being the “first.”
See, I don’t understand how abortion can be the most important thing-after all, how can we worry about the unborn before we do something about those already living?
Well, Eastern Orthodox I think takes it, because the Bishop of Rome had the same standing as the Bishops of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch in the beginning. No more, no less. The development of the RCC and the papacy is actually quite interesting if you have the time to go into it.
Meaning Peter broke off his own group from that of Jesus? 
I accept the Petrine tradition, but if you read the Acts of the Apostles, you’ll find passages that seem to indicate that James was the leader.
In addition, the papacy evolved over some time and those in the Orthodox tradition see no need to accept the version of history pushed by the Catholics.
As to Henry VIII, the issues surrounding that break go back much earlier than that specific event, involving the whole notion of national churches. In addition, a case can be made that Henry was simply trying to rectify the error he (or his father) had made when politics were used to bully the pope into granting dispensation to marry Catherine, to begin with. (I find the arguments weak, but they are not nonexistent.)
Your characterization that Henry “got tired of his wife” does a disservice to him, even if we accept that he was in the wrong. He was desperate for a healthy male heir and medical science of the time couldn’t point out that he was the problem. Britain barely recovered from the disastrous War of the Roses that had revolved about the royal succession. It is not too much to consider that Henry truly wanted to do right by his country by providing the means to avoid another such war.
For the Catholic version of the events (behind which you should be able to discern that there were more than one acceptable versions of the story), try The Catholic Encyclopedia - Henry VIII. From there, you might look up Henry on Encyclopædia Britannica, (although I don’t know how much info is available under the newly re-introduced subscription policy).
Trying to avoid a complete hijack here…but I think you present a false dilemma. Caring about an embryo/fetus (who by the way, is “living”) does not preclude or prevent caring for others…it’s not an either/or proposition…at least according to Catholic social justice teaching. The church teaches that ALL life is sacred, not that unborn life is “more” sacred.
All right, I’ve got an out-of-the-blue (i.e. not pertaining to anything we’ve been discussing) question…
Let’s say I do something that the Church considers a fairly serious sin – I mean, skipping-Mass-on-Sunday-serious, not killing-somebody-serious – and the next time I go to mass, I go to communion anyway (which you’re also not supposed to do). If I go to confession and it doesn’t occur to me to specifically mention the going to communion part, because it’s the same priest and he knows I was at communion, is it deliberately withholding something, which invalidates the entire confession?
Reconciliation is not about reciting a laundry list of sins…in fact the church generally frowns on that kind of approach. Reconciliation is about healing and repenting for the pain that we cause others (and ourselves).
The simple answer to your question, (I believe anyway), is no–the confession is not “invalidated”.
That’s what I thought, too – thanks.
:shrug: For the same reasom I live in a nation that once embraced slavery, I suppose.
Just as the United States no longer allows slavery, and as the Southern US states no longer embrace slavery as a rallying cry for secession, the SBC no longer supports slavery.
Andros,
I am not saying that an organization can’t have a dark episode in its history. I would bet that all did. But what I am under the impression that the formation of the SBS group was because of the disagreement about slavery. How does a parent tell they kid why they are of that group and how is it different than other Baptist groups. “well honey, in 1860 we were one group but some wanted to abolish slavery so our group split off”. I would think they would just change their name.
Its not important, its like the people from Oklahoma calling themselves “sooners”. That name was originally the ones that trespassed on the former Indian territory before the official landrush. Now they say it like they are proud.
or people from Ohio calling themselves “buckeyes” when the rest of the country call the tree a “stinking buckeye”.
Straykat: I did notice that reference to priests being wealthy and living in quite nice rectories earlier, but it was not me who said it but Philosphr.
Add to the Henry VIII situation two things:
[li]Aversion between England and Scotland, separate countries, had a long and sometimes bloody history. Henry was an only surviving son; if he left no heir, his sister, married to the King of Scots, would inherit England.[/li]
Asking the Pope for an annulment from a queen you no longer wanted to be married to, much less were infertile with, was a commonplace of medieval politics. But there was a slight complication here. Catherine was Catherine of Aragon; her nephew was Emperor Charles V, heir to Ferdinand and Isabella, Holy Roman Emperor, and King of Spain and the Netherlands. Who was currently occupying Rome. And who was quite unhappy with his uncle-by-marriage wishing to ditch his favorite aunt.
Following up on this – does absolution also count towards things you’ve completely forgotten? The way I read the Catechism’s statement on this is that it does if you genuinely try to remember everything…but if you’ve forgotten something and remember it later, do you have to go back?
I understand that yes, it isn’t a case of either or. But what I’m talking about are priests who say-You MUST vote for a PRO-LIFE candidate. They give voting guides in church bulletins and in the Pittsburgh Catholic that only mentions a candidate’s position on abortion.
They don’t mention what his stance is on other important issues.