Completely Disrespectful

I am so sick of hearing about “free will”. It is not an excuse to get away with murder, literally. Every one on this earth does have free will. Ted Bundy had free will – he used his free will, the ability to think and make decision on his own, to brutally kill several women. But instead of being let go because he exercised his free will he was put to death.

Free will, in my understanding, means the ability to think for yourself and act for yourself. It doesn’t always mean you are right or won’t be punished.

(sorry if my thought process isn’t clear right now – my toddler is screaming. She is exercising her free will to do so… and I’m exercising my free will to put her in ‘time-out’ until she is done.)

The Church, like any organization, has every right to make whatever rules it wants. Its members also have the right to make their beliefs known, to question, and to challenge those rules.

Note: The church is not a democracy, and the pope is the final word on church policy. You do not have a right to question the church. If you want to question the church, join another religion that allows it.

This “they have a right” mentality is part of a larger problem in society… We keep trying to adjust groups to fit individuals, not individuals to fit groups, and your comment about having the right to challenge the church is evidence of it plain and simple.

There’s a big difference between challenging the church in a scholarly setting and defying the church by receiving eucharist in direct violation of a papal order.

Don’t even try to equate the two; it’s nowhere near the same thing.

Excuse me, it wasn’t a papal order, it was an order from the Vatican:

http://www.wfsb.com/global/story.asp?s=1809684

You don’t see the difference between the pope making decisions on how catholics can act in church and participate in the mass versus how world leaders who are elected should proceed with foreign policy?

Just wondering how you draw a distinction there…

You don’t see any irony in accepting the Church’s position as a vehicle for beating Kerry over the head with, and rejecting the Church’s position on Iraq because it disagrees with Bush?

That’s correct, Vinny. This “Lib” does believe in the separation of Church and state. I wasn’t aware that was considered a “lib” “favorite thing”…I thought it was actually one of the key tenets of government in the US. My mistake, I guess…you “cons” think differently?

I personally would not have taken a papal perspective on the Iraqi invasion under consideration when making a political decision on Iraq (even though I agree with Pope’s perspective on that issue). I don’t selectively choose and promote Vatican views that accord with my beliefs, while ignoring the inconvenient ones. I suggest that’s what you’re doing.

You want “a little perspective”? Okay, consider this. The Vatican is denying the Eucharist to an American politician, NOT because of his own behaviour or choices (Kerry has said that he personally does not favour abortion), but because he has stated that he believes others should make that decision for themselves.

Folks forget that anti-Catholicism is a big part of American history, often sparked by a wave of either Irish or Italian immigration. These occasionally provoked massive anti Catholic demonstrations and riots (as a New Yorker, you must know that). People also forget that Catholics, as well as blacks, were one of the reasons the Ku Klux Klan was founded. Apart from ordinary old human xenophobia, one of the reasons for the anti Catholic prejudice was the fear that all Catholics were dominated by Rome, and that a growing Catholic population meant increasing “Romish” (to use the term of the day) influence in American politics.

I used to think of that as an interesting historical factoid (although it resurfaced as recently as the Kennedy/Nixon campaigns, and required a forceful reiteration from JFK of his commitment to the complete separation of Church and State.) However, what the Vatican is now doing is scarily close to realizing that paranoid vision. By denying the Eucharist to politicians who support the right of other Americans to make their own choices on abortion, the Vatican, in effect, is interfering (in a fairly blunt way) with the American political process. I think it’s that that offends me. In Quebec, the Church dictated provincial policy for years, and quite openly…that only stopped in the mid 1950s. That is not a model I think you want to return to.

If Mary had aborted Jesus instead of having Him, we never would be having this debate in the first place, since the Catholic Church/Christianity wouldn’t exist. So there!

(I’m not sure what that adds to the debate.)

But receiving communion if you haven’t been to confession is a sin, and it wasn’t created to stop abortion. Come on man, give me a break!

I agree with Vinny (again)on this one. It seems like these politicians are acting out of a childish defiance more than personal principle. I was born and raised Catholic, but I have “free will” and have not really practiced the religion in years. I do not however take communion in my rare appearances at church. I believe in respecting the basis of Catholic doctrine, even if I choose not to participate. This is not a forum to display protest or defiance.

Jesuits rock!

Hey Bal… Wouldn’t it be more of a violation of church and state if Kerry were to say “The vatican said this is bad, so I’m not going to do it?”

I mean, taking the Vatican’s advice on policy issues is even worse in your eyes, isn’t it?

So by Kerry not doing that, and the Vatican only expressing an opinion, I don’t see the influence. Kerry would have to be a pretty big fundamentalist Catholic to change policy based on Vatican decrees.

bal, US Constition, the first amendment says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…the remainder of the amendment is on free speech, freedom of the press, rights of peacable assembly and to petition the Gov. for redress of grievances. Somehow since this was written, it has come to mean if it has to do with religion, it can have no place in government. What does the Canadian laws say about religion?
Regarding Mr. Kerry, I will not question any mans relationship with his God. But when said man states he is a member of a religion, and in the same breath states that he doesn’t feel compelled for whatever the reason to follow the laws of that religion, I must question his steadfastness to follow mere mans laws. If you feel free to disregard what your religion says are the laws of your God, I am inclined to believe you will have even less regard for the laws pertaining to me as a citizen.

balb, this isn’t a separation issue. Kerry is bucking a church doctrine, whilst trying to have the appearance of following church doctrine. It’s a two-face, something Kerry’s famous for.

Yes, in the Church there’s room for dissent, but Kerry isn’t going about that properly either. If I’m not mistaken, if he thinks the Church doctrine is unbiblical (shouldn’t have anything to do with his political beliefs) then he should go to his diocese, which can then take it up the chain. Correct me if I’m wrong, I’m not Catholic.

It’s not as if the Catholic church SUDDENLY made abortion a sin. You’re painting this as if the Church is changing policy to affect politics, when it is in fact the complete opposite.

Now, if I were Catholic, I would accept those rules and try to live by them. I would fail on a few counts, but both the Bible and the Church are quite explicit about that: I am human, I’m weak, I should do my best, and when I fail, I seek forgiveness.

And that’s the difference between you and Kerry. You say you would try to follow Catholic law and seek forgiveness if you don’t.

Well, according to Kerry and Pelosi, they can do whatever they want because they have free will, and people like Whoopi Goldberg stood up at the Murder your Child Freely rally last weekend and says God wanted people to have abortions or otherwise He wouldn’t have given people free will.

It’s not any kind of rightwing groupthink to point out their hypocrisy, especially considering there’s no ambiguity about what’s right and wrong.

As for what his diocese says, that doesn’t mean a single solitary thing. Dioceses do not determine catholic law, the Vatican does. Many dioceses looked the other way at the abuse cases that were touted in the media as the end of the Catholic church, does that mean abuse is right or that the diocese was wrong?

Same thing here; if a bishop doesn’t have the stones to follow Vatican law, does that mean the person violating the law isn’t wrong? Or that the diocese and the person the Vatican says is sinning is wrong?

If you’re a Catholic (and apparently Pelosi and Kerry both are), then the answer is without question: The Vatican is right, period, end of discussion.

Forget the group think here. Kerry and Pelosi are wrong and their continued reception of communion in violation of a Vatican order not to do so is wrong and disrespectful, and that’s the bottom line, and no amount of political posturing or flimsy defense can change that.

There is no question here what’s right and what’s not.

Unless of course you’re a liberal bending over backward to defend John Kerry…

can someone inform me where in the bible abortion is condemned, or more clearly, where politicians who perosnally oppose it but allow it to be a personal choice are condemned? and how Kerry’s interpretation is any less subjective than the Pope? how “being a good catholic” has nothing to do with any constant set of laws or personal honor and conscience but with the individual’s successful navigation and blind obedience of the infinitely varying edicts of hundreds of popes, each one of them with a unique stanch on proper church policy? isn’t the ideal “good” catholic supposed to be a good catholic no matter the church leadership, judged on his merits and good deeds based on an “eternal” law? If obedience to the Vatican is the only rational basis for judgement of the merits of a Catholic, would a Catholic be compelled to jump from a high precipice if ordered by the great pontiff? Isn’t subjectivity supposed to be the trait religious folk attribute to the atheists?

Not quite that easy.

a) For the __th time, the Pope is only infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra on matters of faith and morals…when he makes a formal proclamation.

b) For the —th time, it wasn’t the Pope who spoke.

c) If you don’t believe X, you are still a Roman Catholic if you have been baptized, have not been excommunicated, and still consider yourself to be. You may be in a state of mortal sin, but you’re still Catholic.

So apart from every part of your message being wrong, you’re quite right.

If you don’t believe X, you are still a Roman Catholic if you have been baptized, have not been excommunicated, and still consider yourself to be. You may be in a state of mortal sin, but you’re still Catholic.

Just because you still may “be a Catholic” doesn’t mean that you can participate in the Holy Eucharist. If you are in a state of Mortal Sin and have not received Penance, you should not take Communion. It’s pretty clear-cut.

“….the pope, when speaking on matters of faith is infallible.

If you don’t believe that, you are not a Catholic.”

so if you are a Catholic and you held the position that, in the event of the Pope proclaiming that all Catholics must jump off of high precipices, you would disobey him, then you aren’t a real Catholic?

“c) If you don’t believe X, you are still a Roman Catholic if you have been baptized, have not been excommunicated, and still consider yourself to be. You may be in a state of mortal sin, but you’re still Catholic.”

Once more: so if the Pope ordered all Catholics to jump from high precipices, and you refused, you would be in a state of mortal sin? And if you held the position that you would disobey a papal order to jump from a high precipice, you are also in mortal sin?

I am so sick of hearing about “free will”. It is not an excuse to get away with murder, literally. Every one on this earth does have free will. Ted Bundy had free will – he used his free will, the ability to think and make decision on his own, to brutally kill several women. But instead of being let go because he exercised his free will he was put to death.

Free will, in my understanding, means the ability to think for yourself and act for yourself. It doesn’t always mean you are right or won’t be punished.

(sorry if my thought process isn’t clear right now – my toddler is screaming. She is exercising her free will to do so… and I’m exercising my free will to put her in ‘time-out’ until she is done.)

The Church’s stand on masturbation is also quite clear. It is a mortal sin, meriting eternal damnation, a waste of the gift of life. I look forward to the Church’s denial of communion to all unrepentant masturbators.

The Church, like any organization, has every right to make whatever rules it wants. Its members also have the right to make their beliefs known, to question, and to challenge those rules.

The Church, like any organization, has every right to make whatever rules it wants. Its members also have the right to make their beliefs known, to question, and to challenge those rules.

Note: The church is not a democracy, and the pope is the final word on church policy. You do not have a right to question the church. If you want to question the church, join another religion that allows it.

This “they have a right” mentality is part of a larger problem in society… We keep trying to adjust groups to fit individuals, not individuals to fit groups, and your comment about having the right to challenge the church is evidence of it plain and simple.

Not quite.

Yes, the Church is assuredly not a democracy, and yes, the Pope is “infallible” when he speaks “ex cathedra” on matters of faith or morals.

The Church DOES allow you to question or challenge its teachings. The Church is full of intelligent lay people, theologians and clergy who question its teachings every day. And occasionally, in response to that questioning, the Church changes. Read a little Church history before suggesting that it doesn’t tolerate internal dissent.

As for politicians who support abortion and receive the Eucharist: if God cares, God’ll get them.

There’s a big difference between challenging the church in a scholarly setting and defying the church by receiving eucharist in direct violation of a papal order.

Don’t even try to equate the two; it’s nowhere near the same thing.

What papal order are you referring to? Apparently Cardinal McCarrick hasn’t received it yet…

Excuse me, it wasn’t a papal order, it was an order from the Vatican:

http://www.wfsb.com/global/story.asp?s=1809684

Big difference between a Vatican functionary and a Papal decree. Also note that the Archbishop of Washington is failing to comply.

Let’s cut to the chase here. This is a great fun, but your newfound concern for adherence to Vatican views smacks a bit of political opportunism. I don’t remember quite so much concern for the Pope’s position when the Pontiff was praying for peace and asking Bush to refrain from invading Iraq. Oh, of course…you DISAGREED with him then.

If the Pope had said they would deny communion to all practitioners that were pro-abortion, I could respect the decree. Clearly, he’s doing it for political points, and doesn’t want a mass exodus from the church. People are pissed off about his handling of the pervert priest, that this might push them over the edge.

I can just see the communion lines:

Priest: The Body Of Christ… oh, do you believe in abortion? NEXT!

I question my decision to raise my boys Catholic nearly on a daily basis.

First of all, a little perspective here if you will… I’m not a politician publicly flaunting my decision to sin and saying that in my interpretation sinning is okay, even though it directly contradicts the orders of the church.

As for the President, when last I checked, he wasn’t even Catholic.

Also, if religion were used to make a decision (ie listening to the Pope on Iraq) wouldn’t that put the libs up in arms over their favorite thing; the separation of church and state?

How are they interfering with the process? They’re saying what to do in church, not what to do in office.

If you want to support the right to kill your child, fine, but don’t expect to get communion on Sunday.

They’re not saying to change policy, they’re saying “this is our policy, these are our rules.”

Kerry can do whatever he wants. But if he does, the consequence is he can’t receive communion. I don’t really see how that’s influencing policy; it’s running a religion.

“I really don’t see how that’s influencing policy”.

Oh, please. Come off it. Declaring publicly that any politician who fails to support the Church’s position is in a state of mortal sin is NOT trying to influence politics? Even a Jesuit would gag on that bit of sophistry, my friend.

No WMD? Wow, even Hans Blix didn’t make that claim. In fact, in two separate reports before the war, he would only claim that things were “unaccounted for.”

Unaccounted for is not non-existing.

Now, I’m not saying they are there, however I am saying that for Mike to be more authoritative than a UN Weapons Inspector and the intelligence agencies of multiple countries (who may or may not have been wrong all along) is just ludicrous.

Amen, Pete. Hey Bal, when you come to New York, I’ll introduce you guys, k? lol

Hey, whatever. In Canada we still believe in the separation of Church and State. If the Vatican wants to publicly damn American politicians for not following the Vatican line, and you “libertarians” don’t find that offensive…no problem.

It must be late in the day. I don’t understand what that’s supposed to mean.

Well said, Kevin.

Kevin, we agree right up to the place where you say you don’t question any man’s relationship with his God.

A believing Catholic shouldn’t get an Abortion, shouldn’t commit adultery, shouldn’t masturbate, and shouldn’t take the Lord’s name in vain. Until Vatican 2, a believing Catholic wasn’t allowed to eat meat on Fridays. These were mortal sins (except for the meat, which was venial…purgatory, not hell.)

Now, if I were Catholic, I would accept those rules and try to live by them. I would fail on a few counts, but both the Bible and the Church are quite explicit about that: I am human, I’m weak, I should do my best, and when I fail, I seek forgiveness.

So far that’s about my behaviour, my actions, my consequences. No problem.

Kerry has said (as far as abortion goes) that he accepts the teaching of the Church. What he IS saying is that he is not prepared to see HIS belief, or the belief of his Church, enshrined in law in a way that denies abortion to those who don’t share his views.

The Vatican appears to be saying that to do that is a mortal sin: that it’s not enough for him not to sin, but that he must use his position as a politician to ensure that other people, whether Catholic or not, don’t “sin” either. To me, he’s showing MORE regard for you as a citizen, not less.

Jeremiah:

His diocese doesn’t appear to share the view of the Vatican (see note on the Archbishop of Washington).

And no, I’m not suggesting for a moment that the Church has SUDDENLY made abortion a sin. What I am saying is that the tendency of the Church to meddle in politics rises and falls (temporally and regionally), and that the trend seems to be on the rise.

Guys, honestly: I realize there is a group think at work here that absolutely requires that every thing Kerry does is bad, hypocritical, and flip-floppy. I really admire the imaginative thinking that’s been demonstrated to achieve this. Please bear in mind that I am Canadian, neither Republican nor Democrat (I frankly don’t see a nickle’s worth of difference between them), and don’t particularly like what I see of or read about Kerry. But honestly…you’re demonstrating exactly the kind of single minded “determination to damn” that you accuse liberals of showing toward Bush. I accept that you honestly can’t see that right now. May I suggest you clip and copy your statements in this thread, then come back to them when you’re fifty?

“there’s no ambiguity about what’s right and wrong.”

“Kerry and Pelosi are wrong”.

Wow. And to think they accuse us liberals of moral fascism.

One tiny correction…the “Vatican” is a place, not a synonym for “the Pope. The statement was issued by a “Vatican Official”…not the Pope. The Pope is considered to be infallible when he speaks formally, ex cathedra…”Vatican Officials” are not considered to be infallible. That’s why the Archbishop can decide not to follow the directive. As for his “stones”…he may just have kissed his cardinalcy goodbye for doing what he thinks is right in the face of Vatican opposition. Don’t equate “courage” with “doing what Vinny believes” is right. Oh, sorry, I forgot… there is NO QUESTION in this case about what’s right.

I envy your access to the mind of God. Congratulations.

See my prior note on me and John Kerry.

Catholicism isn’t only based on the Bible, and the pope, when speaking on matters of faith is infallible.

If you don’t believe that, you are not a Catholic.

See how easy that is?

This guy’s claim that the bible is the only arbiter to whether or not something is a sin is flatly false.

For added clarity:

If you are in a position of power and knowingly contribute to the act of mortal sin (e.g. supporting the murder of babies) you are in no different standing than those whose hands actually perform the sin.

Alex: See response 35, paragraph c.

If the Pope issued a statement Ex Cathedra, stating that as a matter of faith or dogma, all Roman Catholics had to jump off a cliff or be in a state of mortal sin, then Catholics who didn’t would.

But…he probably won’t.

Not sure what your point is.