[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Story here. This is not official Church policy, it was the action of a single unnamed priest at a mass for Catholic businessmen. Still, that this attitude exists at all in the ranks of the clergy portends a dismal repeat of what we saw in 2004. Especially this bit further down:
Shame on the RCC for even tolerating this.
[/QUOTE]
Molehills make very awkward-looking mountains.
Every group has to tolerate their fringe, and no group should be judged by their worst members.
Well I can understand the refusal. After 2,000 years and by now billions of individuals taking communion, how much flesh and blood could Jesus conceivably have left? They need to conserve before he’s nothing but some bone and a vial of AB+.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
You know, what Merijeek said about you was right. You really do think moonbeams shine out of Obama’s ass.
Frankly, I think Obama’s a pretty nice guy, but I’m not supporting him because I oppose his political viewpoints. And what’s more, I think this is perfectly appropriate - it is the way most people vote.
[/QUOTE]
You know, Mr Moto, I’m going to take you to task a bit here.
First – I agree that Shayna has been over-the-top enthusiastic in her support for, and admiration of, Senator Obama. She’s not a neutral analyst. We all, I think, see that.
But her point in this exchange is spot-on. I had read this language from Senator Obama earlier, and it left me with great admiration for the man. He’s right. He’s not right about the issue of abortion, of course. But he’s right about how we should approach our discourse about abortion, and indeed about many other contentious issues. Part of being in a religiously-neutral democratic republic is, as he cogently and persuasively points out, is that we religiously-minded voters must articulate our proposals for public policy on the basis of universal values, rather than religion-specific values, if we wish to persuade others to accept them.
Senator Obama understands that when this does not happen, we end up with the religiously-minded demonizing their opposition as amoral or immoral, and the opposition demonizing the religious as sheep, or fascists, as the case may be.
In this thread, we see two different issues intersecting. Obviously, the Catholic Church has every right to offer or deny communion to its members on whatever basis it wishes. But that’s not an argument, or a platform, upon which public policy can or should be based.
In this thread, anti-Catholic haters are quick to toss barbs at the Church. This is uncalled-for, and of course receives little rebuke on this board. But Senator Obama’s words do no such thing – instead they lay the framework for reasoned and respectful debate on the issue. That’s not only admirable – it’s relatively unique in the political world.
I haven’t made up my mind who I’m voting for this fall. But if I vote for Senator Obama, it will be because, even though he does not favor most of my political goals, he brings an integrity to the process that I would like to encourage across the board. And for 2008, that may well be my “single-issue” voter position.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
In this thread, anti-Catholic haters are quick to toss barbs at the Church. This is uncalled-for, and of course receives little rebuke on this board.
[/QUOTE]
As noted in the OP, I’m still mad at the Church for the role it played – or, at least, the role certain American bishops played – in the 2004 election. Whether that made a difference is probably impossible to know, but given how close it was, those bishops have a lot to answer for, and they should have seen their errors and repented by now.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
You know, Mr Moto, I’m going to take you to task a bit here.
First – I agree that Shayna has been over-the-top enthusiastic in her support for, and admiration of, Senator Obama. She’s not a neutral analyst. We all, I think, see that.
But her point in this exchange is spot-on. I had read this language from Senator Obama earlier, and it left me with great admiration for the man. He’s right. He’s not right about the issue of abortion, of course. But he’s right about how we should approach our discourse about abortion, and indeed about many other contentious issues. Part of being in a religiously-neutral democratic republic is, as he cogently and persuasively points out, is that we religiously-minded voters must articulate our proposals for public policy on the basis of universal values, rather than religion-specific values, if we wish to persuade others to accept them.
Senator Obama understands that when this does not happen, we end up with the religiously-minded demonizing their opposition as amoral or immoral, and the opposition demonizing the religious as sheep, or fascists, as the case may be.
In this thread, we see two different issues intersecting. Obviously, the Catholic Church has every right to offer or deny communion to its members on whatever basis it wishes. But that’s not an argument, or a platform, upon which public policy can or should be based.
In this thread, anti-Catholic haters are quick to toss barbs at the Church. This is uncalled-for, and of course receives little rebuke on this board. But Senator Obama’s words do no such thing – instead they lay the framework for reasoned and respectful debate on the issue. That’s not only admirable – it’s relatively unique in the political world.
I haven’t made up my mind who I’m voting for this fall. But if I vote for Senator Obama, it will be because, even though he does not favor most of my political goals, he brings an integrity to the process that I would like to encourage across the board. And for 2008, that may well be my “single-issue” voter position.
[/QUOTE]
Duly noted.
I should note that I don’t much object to Obama’s position or Kmiec’s - though I might disagree, these positions aren’t unreasonable ones. I was merely reacting to the suggestion that given various positions or writings or speeches, of course a certain person would support another.
We know this isn’t true - after all, Kmiec has supported Republicans in the past so supporting Obama now is a bit of a change for him. Had he supported John McCain, nobody would have been surprised - and everyone would have assumed he had good reasons for doing so.
[QUOTE=Otto]
Naw, the only ones who get stiff punishments in the Catholic Church are the altar boys.
[/QUOTE]
No True Catholic has ever harmed a hair on an altar boy’s head. Or anywhere else.
[QUOTE=Slacker]
Obviously he’ll receive one of the stiffest punishments the Catholic church hands out. He may have to sit in a corner for up to 15 minutes.
[/QUOTE]
If he does, that will be more than the RCC did for the pedophile priests. Hell, he may get a promotion.
Oh, so those priests who just couldn’t resist weren’t True Catholics? Odd then, how much power and reverence the Church gave them–and enabled them to continue their abuse over decades. :rolleyes:
The Catholic Church (at least back when I was a member) was also officially against Capital Punishment. (Is that still the case?) Has anyone been denied communion because of their support of a pro-capital punishment candidate?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
No True Catholic has ever harmed a hair on an altar boy’s head. Or anywhere else.
[/QUOTE]
Come, now. The Church decided back in the Third or Fourth Century that priests who are in a state of mortal sin (in that case, temporary-apostasy-to-avoid-execution) are still competent to administer valid sacraments. So aren’t they True Catholics?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Come, now. The Church decided back in the Third or Fourth Century that priests who are in a state of mortal sin (in that case, temporary-apostasy-to-avoid-execution) are still competent to administer valid sacraments.
[/QUOTE]
The rejection of that belief, btw, was called the Donatist heresy.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Come, now. The Church decided back in the Third or Fourth Century that priests who are in a state of mortal sin (in that case, temporary-apostasy-to-avoid-execution) are still competent to administer valid sacraments. So aren’t they True Catholics?
[/QUOTE]
If you say so. I’m not sure how that will go over with the “don’t judge Catholicism by the Catholics” crowd.
Again, didn’t say that. “Is it any wonder” and “Of course” are two completely different concepts. One asks if there’s any surprise to the conclusion, the other assumes no other conclusion is possible.
Of course many other options could make sense had he expressed different motivations, but it is no wonder, given his stated reason and the supporting cite I provided, that this particular person made this particular choice.
Don’t you think it’s time we start listening to each other instead of jumping to conclusions?
[QUOTE=Karen Lingel]
The Catholic Church (at least back when I was a member) was also officially against Capital Punishment. (Is that still the case?) Has anyone been denied communion because of their support of a pro-capital punishment candidate?
[/QUOTE]
The Catholic Church’s position is, and has been for a long time, that while capital punishment may be justifiable under some circumstances, it isn’t justifiable under present circumstances in the US.
The difference is that abortion is never justifiable and always morally evil, so while a Cathoilic can in good conscience, support the death penalty, he or she couldn’t, in good conscience, support abortion.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
If you say so. I’m not sure how that will go over with the “don’t judge Catholicism by the Catholics” crowd.
[/QUOTE]
I think what people sare saying is that the Catholic church is an organization with certain rules, and if a priest breaks those rules (by, for instance, denying communion to this guy), that’s not the fault of the Catholic Church. That’s the fault of the priest, who’s, in fact, breaking the rules of the Catholic Church.
(hijack) You know the thing with the nuns and the rulers–I went to many years of Catholic schools and never once had or heard of a nun physically striking anyone with anything. Nor have I ever known anyone who themselves could vouch for having been hit with rulers. The nuns who taught us were completely committed to us and to making our school the best that it could be–they were some of the kindest and most caring people I’ve ever known.
At the time that there were nuns actively teaching in Catholic schools–they’re few & far between now–the socially acceptable standards for teacher behavior were quite different than they are now. Paddling was acceptable in most public schools. It wasn’t like when you entered the convent you were issued your own personal ruler for smacking kids around. Corporal punishment was accepted by most communities; it’s not now. (end hijack)
[QUOTE=Karen Lingel]
The Catholic Church (at least back when I was a member) was also officially against Capital Punishment. (Is that still the case?) Has anyone been denied communion because of their support of a pro-capital punishment candidate?
[/QUOTE]
Seconding Captain Amazing’s commentary, except that I’d add that (as noted elsewhere) it’s possible to vote for a candidate that’s pro-choice without censure, as long as the intent of the vote is not pro-abortion. In other words, if Joe Politico is anti-war, anti-death penalty, and pro-choice, a faithful Catholic may vote for Joe if his intention is to advance the anti-war and anti-death penalty causes only.
Huh? I don’t understand the point of this Pit thread. Archbishop sticks to Catholic doctrine, news at 11.
If you are Catholic abortion is one of the greatest sins there is.
You’re not supposed to take communion if you’re a divorcee either.
What’s your point?
[QUOTE=mswas]
Huh? I don’t understand the point of this Pit thread. Archbishop sticks to Catholic doctrine, news at 11.
If you are Catholic abortion is one of the greatest sins there is.
You’re not supposed to take communion if you’re a divorcee either.
What’s your point?
[/QUOTE]
The point is that the guy who was denied communion is an ardent foe of abortion.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
I think what people sare saying is that the Catholic church is an organization with certain rules, and if a priest breaks those rules (by, for instance, denying communion to this guy), that’s not the fault of the Catholic Church. That’s the fault of the priest, who’s, in fact, breaking the rules of the Catholic Church.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t priests interpret the rules? Don’t they tell parishioners what to do in order to absolve themselves for breaking rules?
It certainly is convenient that the RCC is only responsible for the good works its priests perform. If they screw up, it’s all on them. Makes it sort of bullet proof, no?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Don’t priests interpret the rules? Don’t they tell parishioners what to do in order to absolve themselves for breaking rules?
It certainly is convenient that the RCC is only responsible for the good works its priests perform. If they screw up, it’s all on them. Makes it sort of bullet proof, no?
[/QUOTE]
Not really. If you have big issues with Catholic theology then the Church might not be your thing, even if your parish priest is a really great guy.