Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Are the ‘Real’ Catholics?
MSNBC ^ | 4-13-04 | melinda henneberger

Posted on 04/13/2004 11:49:17 AM PDT by johnb2004

April 12 - I was waiting outside Senator Ted Kennedy's office not long ago, listening to one side of a conversation on a subject on which one side is all anyone ever seems to hear. "Yes, Ma'am, he is Catholic,'' the young man answering the senator's phone that day told the caller wearily.

"The senators are not doctors, Ma'am, with the exception of Bill Frist...And I think one of them is a veterinarian...I'm sorry you feel that way, Ma'am...The Pope has met him on several occasions and he considers him Catholic.'' Yes, the aide sighed as he hung up, he gets those calls all the time.

Catholics have also been dialing the Washington archdiocese to weigh in on whether another pro-choice Catholic, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, could, should or would take communion on Easter. (In the end, he did, in Boston, without incident.) Why would such a private matter even be open to public debate? Because, previously on "How Catholic Is He...'' Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis began the discussion back in February when he announced ahead of the Missouri presidential primary that he, for one, would refuse Kerry the Eucharist since his public stands on abortion and gay unions contradict church teaching. Last week, Kerry brought fresh misery on himself when he fought back by citing a non-existent pope, "Pius XXIII" as a source of his mistaken belief that Vatican II essentially tells Catholics: Whatever. Someone from a group called Priests for Life then accused Kerry of "supporting the dismemberment of babies.'' And for those who just can't get enough on the subject, there are now several new Web sites solely devoted to Kerry's standing in the Church, including ExcommunicateKerry.com.

I can only imagine how smirk-worthy this exercise must seem to non-Catholics, including a few of my acquaintances who are amazed that anyone would want into our not-very-exclusive club after all we’ve learned about how our leaders protected child abusers instead of children over the decades. And the Catholic Church has not survived for more than 2,000 years by excluding, but rather by co-opting everything from Roman holidays to elements of African animism.

So it was a relief to hear Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington respond with a pastoral voice on the Kerry issue. McCarrick is heading a U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops task force on how to handle Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. In an empty meeting room at St. Matthew’s in downtown D.C., where the cardinal led a prayer service last Wednesday, he pulled a couple of dusty folding chairs down from a stack so we’d have someplace to sit while we talked. When I asked about Kerry’s standing, he seemed pained by the idea of turning him, or anyone else, away. “I would find it hard to use the Eucharist as a sanction,” he said gently. “You don’t know what’s in anyone’s heart when they come before you. It’s important that everyone know what our principles are, but you’d have to be very sure someone had a malicious intent [before denying him communion.]” McCarrick is surprisingly humble, and a reluctant judge. “It’s between the person and God,’’ he said. Should Kerry or someone in his campaign seek counsel on Catholic protocol? “What they do,’’ he demurred, “is really their business and not mine.’’ The archdiocese has gotten some calls on the subject from rank-and-file Catholics, but he declined to characterize the faithful as a monolith: “Obviously, we run the spectrum in the Catholic Church, from people who feel very annoyed with their politicians to those who are very supportive.’’

Though this attitude is sure to be criticized as more watered-down Catholicism Lite, I don’t see it that way. At a less orthodox time in my own Catholic life, a nun in my parish in Northern California improved my understanding and appreciation of the sacraments through the underused—and doubtless desperate—strategy of working with me instead of turning me away. I had agreed to teach a parish Sunday school class for second-graders preparing to make their first communion—until it dawned on me that I would also be expected to instruct them on the sacrament formerly known as confession. “I haven’t been in a while myself,” I told her. “That’s fine,’’ she said briskly. “Maybe you’ll go now.’’ Like her, McCarrick seems to feel that we only get better if we stick around and practice.

For some, this willingness to meet people where they are amounts to an acknowledgment that the clerical sex scandals have undermined the bishops’ ability to lead. But McCarrick disagrees. “You have conversations that are compassionate but clear. You’re not doing anyone a favor if you’re not clear.’’ He seems confident that the church as a whole is ready to move beyond the scandals now. But, he said, “You can only move forward if the people believe that we appreciate the harm that’s been done, and understand the sadness and the betrayal.’’

“We’ve had this trauma, but we can’t stay in darkness; that’s the whole Easter message. We’re an Easter people and Alleluia is our song,’’ he said, quoting Augustine. Throughout the trial that the scandal has been to all American Catholics, that song sometimes seemed impossible to sing. The wounds will not heal quickly, and they are sure to be ripped open occasionally, too. Only last week, a 72-year-old priest in Orange County, California was removed from the ministry after pleading guilty to molesting a 15-year-old girl as he sat with her in the back seat of a car—while her parents rode up front.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian
KEYWORDS: amchurchgarbage; cafeteriacatholic; catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

1 posted on 04/13/2004 11:49:18 AM PDT by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYer
So it was a relief to hear Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington respond with a pastoral voice on the Kerry issue. McCarrick is heading a U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops task force on how to handle Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. In an empty meeting room at St. Matthew’s in downtown D.C., where the cardinal led a prayer service last Wednesday, he pulled a couple of dusty folding chairs down from a stack so we’d have someplace to sit while we talked. When I asked about Kerry’s standing, he seemed pained by the idea of turning him, or anyone else, away. “I would find it hard to use the Eucharist as a sanction,” he said gently. “You don’t know what’s in anyone’s heart when they come before you. It’s important that everyone know what our principles are, but you’d have to be very sure someone had a malicious intent [before denying him communion.]” McCarrick is surprisingly humble, and a reluctant judge. “It’s between the person and God,’’ he said. Should Kerry or someone in his campaign seek counsel on Catholic protocol? “What they do,’’ he demurred, “is really their business and not mine.’’
2 posted on 04/13/2004 11:50:25 AM PDT by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
. . . a nun in my parish in Northern California . . .

Sigh!

3 posted on 04/13/2004 11:55:07 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
Where's the Barf Alert?
4 posted on 04/13/2004 12:12:40 PM PDT by Bohemund
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bohemund
Many say this Cardinal is staunchly orthodox and conservative? Hmm...
5 posted on 04/13/2004 12:56:34 PM PDT by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
"At a less orthodox time in my own Catholic life, a nun in my parish in Northern California improved my understanding and appreciation of the sacraments through the underused—and doubtless desperate—strategy of working with me instead of turning me away."

One has to be open to changing the hardness of heart that denies eternal realities.

I don't know what is in the man's heart. That definitely is between God and the person.

But, is advocating the wholesale slaughter of innocents, gay marriage (pardon, "civil union"), fetal cell research, and other things that have been condemned by JPII a sign of a converted heart?
6 posted on 04/13/2004 2:31:31 PM PDT by OpusatFR (John Kerry - Cheezewhiz for the mind - marshmallow mush for the masses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; ..
So it was a relief to hear Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington respond with a pastoral voice on the Kerry issue. McCarrick is heading a U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops task force on how to handle Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. In an empty meeting room at St. Matthew’s in downtown D.C., where the cardinal led a prayer service last Wednesday, he pulled a couple of dusty folding chairs down from a stack so we’d have someplace to sit while we talked. When I asked about Kerry’s standing, he seemed pained by the idea of turning him, or anyone else, away. “I would find it hard to use the Eucharist as a sanction,” he said gently. “You don’t know what’s in anyone’s heart when they come before you. It’s important that everyone know what our principles are, but you’d have to be very sure someone had a malicious intent [before denying him communion.]” McCarrick is surprisingly humble, and a reluctant judge. “It’s between the person and God,’’ he said. Should Kerry or someone in his campaign seek counsel on Catholic protocol? “What they do,’’ he demurred, “is really their business and not mine.’’

“I would find it hard to use the Eucharist as a sanction,” (Unless the villian proposed saying a Latin Mass?) “What they do,’’ he demurred, “is really their business and not mine.’’ (Unless the villian proposes saying a Latin Mass?)

7 posted on 04/13/2004 3:21:11 PM PDT by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: narses; OpusatFR
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)
8 posted on 04/13/2004 3:39:54 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
1558 "Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the offices of teaching and ruling. . . . In fact . . . by the imposition of hands and through the words of the consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given, and a sacred character is impressed in such wise that bishops, in an eminent and visible manner, take the place of Christ himself, teacher, shepherd, and priest, and act as his representative (in Eius persona agant)."37 "By virtue, therefore, of the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, bishops have been constituted true and authentic teachers of the faith and have been made pontiffs and pastors."38
9 posted on 04/13/2004 4:00:11 PM PDT by Catholicguy (MT1618 Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
No question H.E. has the Graces, the question is does he cooperate with them? Some Bishops have said outright that Senator Kerry ought not avail himself of Holy Communion until he changes his heart and his public actions. Which of the Bishops are cooperating with God's Grace, those who decline to take a public position on a clear public sinner, or those who do?
10 posted on 04/13/2004 4:04:23 PM PDT by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
11 posted on 04/13/2004 4:07:06 PM PDT by Catholicguy (MT1618 Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
Can. 375 §1 By divine institution, Bishops succeed the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who is given to them. They are constituted Pastors in the Church, to be the teachers of doctrine, the priests of sacred worship and the ministers of governance.
12 posted on 04/13/2004 4:12:44 PM PDT by Catholicguy (MT1618 Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy; johnb2004
I wonder, what's your point?
13 posted on 04/13/2004 4:14:29 PM PDT by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004; american colleen; sinkspur; Lady In Blue; Salvation; Polycarp IV; narses; ...
At a less orthodox time in my own Catholic life, a nun in my parish in Northern California improved my understanding and appreciation of the sacraments through the underused—and doubtless desperate—strategy of working with me instead of turning me away. I had agreed to teach a parish

Great! Lesson learned! Now it is time for your as Cardinal to impart that wisdom to your listeners, especially a 'presidential candidate' named Kerry. Otherwise, no lesson was learned.

14 posted on 04/13/2004 4:23:49 PM PDT by NYer (O Promise of God from age to age. O Flower of the Gospel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
It is ineluctable there are duties to be discharged. One of the reasons we Catholics in America live in such disunity dissension and discord is the Bishops have been derelict in their duties.
15 posted on 04/13/2004 4:25:22 PM PDT by Catholicguy (MT1618 Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The good Cardinal responds, “What they do,’’ he demurred, “is really their business and not mine.’’
16 posted on 04/13/2004 4:26:14 PM PDT by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
"One of the reasons we Catholics in America live in such disunity dissension and discord is the Bishops have been derelict in their duties."

Amen. The problem I have is that the Cardinal Abp. of the Nations Capitol essentially has said that Senator Kerry may get Communion from him. This, just after a well publicized PUBLIC act of BLASHPHEMY and a public life of direct and unarguable opposition to Catholic teaching regarding LIFE. If it's OK for John F'ing Kerry to quaf the grapejuice and eat the cracker at the AME "church" at the hands of a priestess, what is NOT OK according to H.E. Card. McKarrick?

17 posted on 04/13/2004 4:29:36 PM PDT by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
PS, I admire anyone that can use the word "ineluctable" in a sentence. Bravo!
18 posted on 04/13/2004 4:30:18 PM PDT by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
So it was a relief to hear Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington respond with a pastoral voice on the Kerry issue.

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

The sanctifying office

893 The bishop is "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,"423 especially in the Eucharist which he offers personally or whose offering he assures through the priests, his co-workers. The Eucharist is the center of the life of the particular Church. The bishop and priests sanctify the Church by their prayer and work, by their ministry of the word and of the sacraments. They sanctify her by their example, "not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock."424 Thus, "together with the flock entrusted to them, they may attain to eternal life."425

The governing office

894 "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power" which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

896 The Good Shepherd ought to be the model and "form" of the bishop's pastoral office. Conscious of his own weaknesses, "the bishop . . . can have compassion for those who are ignorant and erring. He should not refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as of his very own children. . . . The faithful . . . should be closely attached to the bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father":428

19 posted on 04/13/2004 4:36:50 PM PDT by Catholicguy (MT1618 Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the True Church of Jesus Christ."
- St. Athanasius
20 posted on 04/13/2004 4:43:31 PM PDT by polemikos (Ecce Agnus Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
I was watching EWTN the other night and saw a woman assume the ambo where she proceeded to read the Gospel. This occured during the Easter Vigil.

"Wait on the Lord" is my operating motto. I have no expectation things will be set right during my lfetime.

21 posted on 04/13/2004 4:44:46 PM PDT by Catholicguy (MT1618 Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: narses
:). Thanks, brother.
22 posted on 04/13/2004 4:45:34 PM PDT by Catholicguy (MT1618 Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
I agree, in the Lord's time, not ours.
23 posted on 04/13/2004 4:58:34 PM PDT by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: johnb2004
What an insipid article.

Last week, Kerry brought fresh misery on himself when he fought back by citing a non-existent pope, "Pius XXIII" as a source of his mistaken belief that Vatican II essentially tells Catholics: Whatever.

How did I miss this? Is this true?

25 posted on 04/13/2004 6:19:47 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004; OpusatFR; narses; nickcarraway; polemikos; Aquinasfan
Catholics need to explain this to me. The official Catholic church position is to be against abortion and the death penalty. Why this furor over a "pro-choice" politician receiving communion and not the same furor over a "pro-death penalty" politician receiving communion? Kerry after all never committed an abortion and said he is personally against abortion. But being a man and not a doctor he will never commit an abortion personally. So what is his sin? Allowing others to be able to commit the sin of abortion? When did allowing someone the free will to commit a sin become a sin?
26 posted on 04/13/2004 7:28:40 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
President Bush declared that he is pro-life, and he has been elected to our highest office. For Kerry to say that he separates his personal view from his political one is a cop-out. The man is voting with those who are pro-choice, shaking their hands much more firmly than he would shake yours. His vote is aligned with those who would oppose God, supporting those who have disdain for the Word of God. A person who follows the Faith does so all day long, not just when he appears at church.
27 posted on 04/13/2004 7:31:16 PM PDT by man of Yosemite ("When a man decides to do something everyday, that's about when he stops doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
The official Catholic church position is to be against abortion and the death penalty.

Of the two, only abortion is an intrinsic evil.

The Church "does not exclude . . . recourse to the death penalty" (CCC 2267). The death penalty, in the prudential judgement of JPII, should be rarely applied, but it is morally permissible in some situations. So good Cathoics can disagree over what is prudent in a particular situation vis-a-vis the death penalty.
28 posted on 04/13/2004 7:35:55 PM PDT by polemikos (Ecce Agnus Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Destro
When did allowing someone the free will to commit a sin become a sin?

"A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals" (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, 4)."

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), 73).

It's allowing someone to commit murder.
29 posted on 04/13/2004 7:41:28 PM PDT by polemikos (Ecce Agnus Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)

Thank you. It's a passage I often meditate upon for myself.

But considered from the perspective of a bishop or priest knowingly administering the sacrament to a pro-abort, it seems almost Pilate-like. Too politically dangerous to them personally to care about the soul of the person presenting themself for communion. Assist them in their path to damnation and save themselves alot of worldly grief.

For all the sins I risk being confronted with on judegement day, I feel almost relieved that this can't be among them. Yet can anyone seriously believe that the vast majority of American bishops and priests will not answer for their neglect of these members of their flock some day?

30 posted on 04/13/2004 7:51:54 PM PDT by Snuffington (to damnation and save themselves alot of worldly grief. <p>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
How did I miss this? Is this true?

Sort of. In context he was clearly referring to John XXIII. But he definitely said Pius, instead of John.

31 posted on 04/13/2004 7:54:25 PM PDT by Snuffington (to damnation and save themselves alot of worldly grief. <p>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
Then a good Catholic must resign his position if the secular institutions make abortion legal to be in good standing with the church then?
32 posted on 04/13/2004 7:54:25 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
When I asked about Kerry’s standing, he seemed pained by the idea of turning him, or anyone else, away. “I would find it hard to use the Eucharist as a sanction,” he said gently. “You don’t know what’s in anyone’s heart when they come before you. It’s important that everyone know what our principles are, but you’d have to be very sure someone had a malicious intent [before denying him communion.]”

Seeing as he has taken a public stand on the issue, the bishop knows full well what's in the senator's heart. His is a misguided sense of compassion that confuses non-judgmentalism with Christianity. Bishops seem to prefer worldly power and will show more "compassion" for a politico than they will for the slaughtered innocents.

33 posted on 04/13/2004 7:56:27 PM PDT by TradicalRC (Fides quaerens intellectum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Welcome back, CG.

I wanted to know your thoughts on this regarding the washing of the feet. It seems that a bishop or two was stating that it should be men only getting their feet washed. Would it be improper to disobey the bishop or do away with the ritual entirely if the priest disagreed with him?
34 posted on 04/13/2004 8:00:20 PM PDT by TradicalRC (Fides quaerens intellectum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Then a good Catholic must resign his position if the secular institutions make abortion legal to be in good standing with the church then?

Can you give me a fer instance?
35 posted on 04/13/2004 8:01:03 PM PDT by polemikos (Ecce Agnus Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
Last week, Kerry brought fresh misery on himself when he fought back by citing a non-existent pope, "Pius XXIII" as a source of his mistaken belief that Vatican II essentially tells Catholics:

Unbelievable. Next he'll be citing quotes from that great American, President Jack Andrews.

36 posted on 04/13/2004 8:06:29 PM PDT by Barnacle (Refuse to speak Leftist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
"Like her, McCarrick seems to feel that we only get better if we stick around and practice."

For Kerry the above has nothing to do with it. He is making his PUBLIC attendance in Catholic Church to garnish the Catholic vote. This sho0uld NOT be allowed.

37 posted on 04/13/2004 8:21:04 PM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH (A vote for George W. Bush IS a vote for principle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
You are precisely right.
38 posted on 04/13/2004 8:23:54 PM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH (A vote for George W. Bush IS a vote for principle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Destro; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; ...
"The official Catholic church position is to be against abortion and the death penalty. "

Not true. The Church has ALWAYS supported the death penalty and ALWAYS opposed abortion. The current Pope has argued that the Death Penalty today may not be necessary, but that isn't the same as never allowable. It is also not a formal teaching, or dogma, of the Universal Church, whereas the ban on abortion is.
39 posted on 04/13/2004 8:29:54 PM PDT by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Catholic Ping list, please email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
Cardinal McCarrick prefers Catholic-Sorta-Lite. The touchy-feely-kiss-and-hold-hands flavor. You can be anything you want and Jesus will follow you in your lifestyle and be your friend. Anything to reinforce your positive self-image. Blech.

Does no one take a stand?
40 posted on 04/13/2004 8:41:41 PM PDT by Jaded (My sheeple, my sheeple, what have you done to Me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: man of Yosemite
"While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I have always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith." --Ronald Reagan
41 posted on 04/13/2004 8:59:06 PM PDT by TYVets ("An armed society is a polite society." - Robert A. Heinlein & me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: man of Yosemite
"While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I have always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith." --Ronald Reagan

42 posted on 04/13/2004 9:00:53 PM PDT by TYVets ("An armed society is a polite society." - Robert A. Heinlein & me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: narses
Narses, I think you should say the Catholic Church has always held that the death penalty can be used legitimately by a government. Saying the Church always supported the death penalty isn't quite the way to put it. Sorry to nitpick.
43 posted on 04/13/2004 10:43:42 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
“I would find it hard to use the Eucharist as a sanction,” he said gently. “You don’t know what’s in anyone’s heart when they come before you. It’s important that everyone know what our principles are, but you’d have to be very sure someone had a malicious intent [before denying him communion.]” McCarrick is surprisingly humble, and a reluctant judge. “It’s between the person and God,’’ he said. Should Kerry or someone in his campaign seek counsel on Catholic protocol? “What they do,’’ he demurred, “is really their business and not mine.’’....." “You have conversations that are compassionate but clear. You’re not doing anyone a favor if you’re not clear.’’

Stuff & nonsense! What kind of shephard would leave his flock to wander where they may and then attribute their devourng by wolves an Act of God?...Where is the clarity in allowing some follow the Luciferian Commandment: Do What Thou Wilt?

44 posted on 04/14/2004 12:40:55 AM PDT by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
The official Catholic church position is to be against abortion and the death penalty.

The Church regards abortion as it regards murder. The Church sees no moral difference.

The Church's position regarding the death penalty is different. The Church has always maintained that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty for serious crimes like murder. Whether the death penalty should be imposed in particular cases, however, is a matter of prudential judgement.

The current pope has said that since it is now possible in some societies to incarcerate criminals for life without risk to society, there is no need for the death penalty. This is a prudential recommendation, not a repudiation of the death penalty in principle.

Why this furor over a "pro-choice" politician receiving communion and not the same furor over a "pro-death penalty" politician receiving communion?

Because abortion, like murder, is always wrong (except when the mother's life is at risk). It's intrinsically evil. The imposition of the death penalty isn't always wrong. It isn't intrinsically evil.

Kerry after all never committed an abortion and said he is personally against abortion.

Just substitute the word "murder" for "abortion," and the Church's reasoning becomes clear: "Kerry after all never committed a murder and said he is personally against murder, [but he thinks women should have the right to choose murder].

But being a man and not a doctor he will never commit an abortion personally. So what is his sin? Allowing others to be able to commit the sin of abortion? When did allowing someone the free will to commit a sin become a sin?

Failing to work to criminalize murder (abortion), as a legislator, is a grave sin of ommission.

45 posted on 04/14/2004 5:07:04 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Destro
"Kerry after all never committed an abortion and said he is personally against abortion. But being a man and not a doctor he will never commit an abortion personally. So what is his sin?"

I am no theologian. But I know my faith. The sins of omission and commission are probably not thought of by many people, but they are sins.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251b.htm

"Omission" is here taken to be the failure to do something one can and ought to do. If this happens advertently and freely a sin is committed. Moralists took pains formerly to show that the inaction implied in an omission was quite compatible with a breach of the moral law, for it is not merely because a person here and now does nothing that he offends, but because he neglects to act under circumstances in which he can and ought to act. The degree of guilt incurred by an omission is measured like that attaching to sins of commission, by the dignity of the virtue and the magnitude of the precept to which the omission is opposed as well as the amount of deliberation."

To me, the ability to CAST THE VOTE in issues that are moral truths is omission.

Of course, as I said. I am no theologian, nor am I judging the man. I merely measure my own thoughts and attitudes against Kerry who brings his Catholicism into the presidential race.
46 posted on 04/14/2004 5:08:51 AM PDT by OpusatFR (John Kerry - Cheezewhiz for the mind - marshmallow mush for the masses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
"Because abortion, like murder, is always wrong (except when the mother's life is at risk). It's intrinsically evil. The imposition of the death penalty isn't always wrong. It isn't intrinsically evil."

Just to clarify, you do not mean to say that abortion is ever morally justified do you? In those rare circumstances that a mother's life may hang in the balance, then delivering the baby early may be required and the baby may die in the process, but intention is everything. To intentionally abort is a grave sin.

47 posted on 04/14/2004 5:40:48 AM PDT by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
Just to clarify, you do not mean to say that abortion is ever morally justified do you?

It can be if the life of the mother is in grave danger. It would be an application of the principle of double-effect. Consider the case of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. In order to save the mother's life, the baby must be removed from the fallopian tube. Removing the baby will kill the baby. But the primary intention of the action isn't to kill the baby, but to save the mother's life. One action has two effects, one good and one bad. The secondary effect isn't worse than the good effected by the primary act, so the primary act is permissible.

48 posted on 04/14/2004 6:14:09 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Yes, so the intention is not to abort. The intention is to save the mother's life, but the child dies in the process.
49 posted on 04/14/2004 6:18:04 AM PDT by johnb2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: johnb2004
I was wrestling with how to word that, because of the objection you mentioned. Is it appropriate to say that abortion is never permissible? Yes, if this qualification is added.
50 posted on 04/14/2004 7:11:22 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson