Posted on 02/25/2010 8:33:29 AM PST by Pyro7480
Thanks Campion.
Things are actually better than they have been for decades(not that it doesn’t have a LONG way to go), and you would have never seen some of the discipline type stuff going on you see now. For example, so many bishops speaking out against Obama speecherfying at ND. Yes it was terrible that it couldn’t have been stopped, but if it had happened in the 70s-80s you probably wouldn’t have heard any bishop speaking out against it, and probably would have heard of some who strongly supported it.
As far as bishops not treating abortion like what they say it is, it’s going to be looked back at as a scandal that dwarfs the homosexualist priest scandal.
Freegards
But don't you wonder why it isn't much more clear-cut and defined?
Is the RCC simply too big to deal with Chavez because he isn't the only one in need of rebuke?
So the person that says that he/she personally doesn't approve of abortion but says he wouldn't vote to stop it, has the innocent blood of that child on his/her hands. The Catholics that stay in the Democrat party that has in its planks, the women's "right to choose" is committing murder by prolonging this abomination.
Now that's my personal reading of the Scripture and I feel the Church agrees with that interpretation. Having established that, why are these high profile Dems allowed to remain in the Church? I have been scolded that it is difficult to be excommunicated, and I can appreciate that, but at some point, shouldn't the Church make a decision over the parishioners that are publicly thumbing their noses at the Church? Why was Teddy Kennedy allowed to be supported by the Church in Mass. year after year, when his life was fraught with open defiance of the Church?
I know there are many that say that it isn't up to me to decide who is worthy to be called Catholic, but at what point is the Church responsible to decide the parishioner isn't serious about their faith? IMHO, a few "trials" of high profile perps would prove the Church will not bend to Satan and means what it is saying. If there were consequences for a few of these, the low profile Catholics would have to decide it's either being Catholic, or being a Democrat, you can't be both.
Recently, we all were reminded that the charade is ongoing when Biden and others proudly wore their ashes on their foreheads on TV to show they are still "good Catholics". Maybe Biden just fell into a door and it was a bruise, That's what the "Catholic" news caster thought anyway. She didn't even know it was ash Wed. That's where we are today.
Abortion and the Church has been going on for 40 years. I've had to mute the TV or cover my ears to listen to Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, and others over decades. I get angry and ashamed to know that they are welcomed into the Church and even recognized for their "acts". I often think of what it would be like for NAZI's to be honored by Jewish Synagogue's. I'm told I should pray for my "brothers" and seek to bridge the gaps of understanding, but for how long? I don't think Pelosi will have an epiphany and fall in love with the Catholic Church's teaching. It isn't like she doesn't know what the Church teaches and she has decided she knows better. I'm sure the Unitarians would love to have her.
Abortion is just the most visible sin in public view, but there are many other splits that go almost in silence. I even hate to bring up women priests or condoms or divorce, when abortion is out there in front of everyone. I wish condom use was all Catholics had to argue about, but abortion and euthanasia are front and center most of the time and Dem Catholics are right there in defiance of the Church.
A line in the sand should be drawn on abortion and the ones that can't accept this should be asked to leave. Otherwise Catholics are no different than the other denominations that are crumbling under the weight of liberalism.
Not sure what you mean by that. The hierarchy doesn't like him. I see no evidence that he practices his [supposed] faith, in fact, it's not entirely clear to me that he even still self-identifies as a "Catholic".
So what you have in Chavez -- as far as I've been able to determine -- is a non-practicing "Catholic" at odds with his bishop.
No point in excommunicating him (assuming he's not already done so himself latae sententiae): he doesn't "communicate" in the first place, and would just try to make himself a martyr.
I think you, and editor-surveyor (above), may have a bit of a misunderstanding about what "excommunication" does. It doesn't remove the excommunicate from the church -- even a bishop doesn't have that power.
If you want to talk definitive removal from the Catholic Church, that has to come either from the sinner himself (by formally declaring that he is not a Catholic, or joining some other religion, etc.), or from God -- by having the sinner die and go to the bad place.
Excommunication simply says to a Catholic: "You are prohibited, formally and publicly, from receiving any of the sacraments of the church, until such time as you repent of sin X before a minister Y authorized to accept your repentance." (Exactly who Y is, depends on the situation of the case; either a priest, a bishop, or the Pope.)
Canon 915 is not excommunication. It's an instruction to the minister of communion to refuse communion to "manifest public sinners". I, like a lot of other Catholics (e.g., Abp. Raymond Burke of the Holy See), think it ought to be used a lot more often than it is.
As to why it isn't, ask the bishop of the person in question.
Obviously I can't "vote" Mr. Kennedy out of the Church and the priests and Bishops don't seem to care what I think, so I'm left disillusioned and angry why I am taught one thing, but others are judged by a different standard. I am lectured all the time about how The Church is stable and consistent and then have to watch the Church hold Teddy up as a pillar in the Church. I don't doubt at some point he will be nominated for "sainthood" if they could just get past all that Kopeckney and divorce stuff. ( and others stuff we can't know that the Church knows about but is hiding.)
I know I'm being a little persnickety, but it is weighing on me that the Church would participate in this folly. As far as I'm concerned, allowing Pelosi, Kerry and Biden to take the Sacraments, makes the Church a participant in their sin. The Church cannot possibly say they don't know what these people are doing. I am more of an activist type and it's hard to defend the Church when these people are raised in conversation. If the Church chooses to ignore their sin, I have to ask what the motivations are from the Church. Money, access, position, ...?
When I bring up excommunication, I'm told it's none of my business and the Church will handle Church business. Well, I've been waiting a few DECADES now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, all the marching and sign waving from anti abortion Catholics would pale in comparison if the Church just held one highly visible Dem to public humiliation. Try to imagine Pelosi being called out to defend herself against Church discipline. She would eventually be forced, in public, to chose abortion, or Catholicism. I know it would force many to re evaluate their positions if she were disciplined. And it may have stopped the abomination that was Teddy's funeral.
I'm not saying the church needs to wiretap and hire detectives to follow parishioners around, but these people rub our noses in their defiance and then enjoy the backing of the Church. If the Church didn't back Kennedy for 50 years, could he have been repeatedly elected in Massachusetts? Couldn't the Church find and support a pro life Catholic instead of him? Kerry is the same thing. I have mentioned several times that Obama won with a majority of the Catholic vote and all I get is "They aren't real Catholics". All that means is it means nothing to call yourself Catholic. It has been taken over with non Catholics if that is the case. Most of my life I've been taught that you don't really have the option to disagree with Catholic doctrine if you want to be a Catholic. It isn't a democracy. IMHO, this is why we have the women priests, birth control, married priests, ect, controversies. If we can debate these issues, then why not be pro abortion, and homosexual marriage? I'm told over and over the position of the Church is clear, but I guess some haven't gotten the memo. As far as I can tell it depends on who you are and what Bishop you have as to whether or not abortion is murder. It's starting to make sense why a Mafia Don gets all the bells and whistles funeral when they get whacked in New Jersey. If the Church gets the check, the guy gets the "works". Pretty cynical, huh?
This kind of talk angers many Catholics, but I'm sick of fighting for babies lives and have the Church back the baby killers. We could argue many issues , but abortion has to be the slam dunk issue to unite Catholics. I just can't bend or water it down, and frankly, the Church is trying to have it both ways. .........I'm done, /rant off
I know I will offend many, but, actions speak much louder than words, and my own belief on this is that Ratzinger, many RC Cardinals and the majority of American Roman Catholic Bishops “speak with forked tongue” ON THIS ISSUE (socialism), as Native American’s used to say, when the Europeans said one thing and then supported something else.
I haven’t found one set of statements by American RC officials where they find anything offensive about Obamacare other than “right to life” issues and mandates that could make RC institutions become legally obligated to take actions against their moral principles. But, there is a ton of massive socialist encroachment into the fabric of our lives in Obamacare, accompanied by, and to be enforced by massive expansion of federal authorities, and on THOSE things the RC is silent. And that is the same RC that invited BHO to Notre Dame. The shoe fits.
Excellent thread! Thank you so much for posting it.
Don't forget that Pope Paul VI in "Populorum Progressio" (1967) critiqued the international economic order, explicitly condemned the capitalistic system as presently known for the social evils and called for development through consensus rather than struggle. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) was prefect of the CDF at the time when the instructions were issued, and published his own personal criticism of the movement in 1985. The workings of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are totally beyond me, but seem to have played a God ordained role on par with the pope.
You’re right that too many bishops don’t brush up on and/or don’t care what their own Church teaches, but it isn’t just on the issue of socialism.
Bookmarking for future reference.
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.