Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vatican urges Catholic politicians to vote along church lines
Associated Press ... live feed | January 15, 2003

Posted on 01/16/2003 6:05:27 AM PST by NYer

VATICAN CITY (AP) _ The Vatican took aim at pro-choice Catholic politicians Thursday, telling them that Church teaching demands they defend ``the basic right to life from conception to natural death.''

A new set of guidelines approved by Pope John Paul II for Catholic politicians said that Church opposition to abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage was not up for negotiation. The were issued a week before major demonstrations are planned in the United States by pro-choice and anti-abortion groups and amid continuing efforts, mainly in Europe, to legalize euthanasia and gay marriages. The Vatican said it was publishing the document now because of medical and scientific advances and because of the ``emergence of ambiguities or questionable positions in recent times.''

The guidelines, prepared by the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, don't change the church's long-held positions. Rather, they serve as a reminder of Church teachings for Catholic politicians, so that when they vote for legislation or otherwise influence public policy, they do so in line with certain ``nonnegotiable ethical principles.''

In particular, the document said laws concerning abortion and euthanasia ``must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo.'' It said laws safeguarding marriage between man and woman must be promoted and that ``in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.''

The document also referred vaguely to issues of peace, saying Catholics should not confuse the Church's promotion of peace and rejection of violence with ``secular'' pacificist and ideological visions. The pope's opposition to war in Iraq is likely to make him a rallying point in the event hostilities erupt. ``The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person,'' the document said, adding: ``Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle.''

The guidelines don't mention punishment _ such as excommunication _ for Catholic politicians who fail to tow the line. Rather, they frame the issue as one of ``conscience'' that politicians will have to deal with.

``Scientific progress has resulted in advances that are unsettling for the consciences of men and women, and call for solutions that respect ethical principles in a coherent and fundamental way,'' the document said.

``Catholics, in this difficult situation, have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard,'' it said.

The Vatican stressed that it wasn't trying to dictate policy or interfere in matters of state, but to rather ``instruct and illuminate'' Catholic political leaders. And it challenged the idea that ethical pluralism ``is the very condition for democracy.''

The document was released a week before the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision lifting anti-abortion laws nationwide. Demonstrations by the pro-choice and anti-abortion movements in the United States are planned for Jan. 22.

The Vatican never disguised its irritation with Geraldine Ferraro, a Catholic and the U.S. Democratic vice presidential candidate in 1984, for her position that she opposed abortion but was also opposed to outlawing it. Recently, former Italian Premier Giulio Andreotti, a practicing Catholic, said he deeply regretted having signed the law legalizing abortion in Italy when he was prime minister in 1978.

The Vatican has also been campaigning against efforts, particularly in Europe, to legalize same-sex marriages and offer the unions the same benefits granted to traditional heterosexual marriages.

Jan. 22 also marks the start of the Roman Catholic church's World Meeting of Families _ a five-day meeting in Manila, Philippines to promote family values. Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, welcomed the publication of the document, saying it ``addresses some of the profound challenges faced by Catholic politicians and voters who are confronted with various moral and social issues in the context of a democratic society.'' He said he hoped the document would encourage U.S. Catholic politicians to continue to ``respect the most essential moral values of our human nature.'' The Vatican released similar statements from German and Italian cardinals along with the document Thursday.

While not offering concrete examples of legislation for Catholic politicians to promote, the document does propose a model for them to emulate: St. Thomas More, the 16th century lawyer and diplomat who refused to renounce the pope and recognize the king as head of the English church. King Henry VIII had More beheaded for his positions. Two years ago, Pope John Paul II made More the patron saint for politicians. ``He taught by his life and his death that 'man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality,''' the document said.


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; General Discusssion; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholicchurch; politicians; vatican

1 posted on 01/16/2003 6:05:27 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

2 posted on 01/16/2003 6:07:54 AM PST by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; AKA Elena; Angelus Errare; Aquinasfan; Aristophanes; ArrogantBustard; Askel5; Barnacle; ...
The guidelines don't mention punishment _ such as excommunication _ for Catholic politicians who fail to tow the line. Rather, they frame the issue as one of ``conscience'' that politicians will have to deal with.

Another example of "catholic lite". How disappointing!

3 posted on 01/16/2003 6:09:32 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
In way, though, this is good. Catholics will be more prone to hold some politician's feet to the fire. It's not going to happen overnight.

I am disappointed that Archbishop Gregory is having trouble finding HIS spine, but the Lord obviously has a plan.
4 posted on 01/16/2003 6:25:52 AM PST by Desdemona (Pitchers and Catchers report in 29 days. And it's snowing (whine))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
I am disappointed that Archbishop Gregory is having trouble finding HIS spine..

Where has he been, anyway? Guess that five minutes of fame is up.

5 posted on 01/16/2003 6:30:18 AM PST by american colleen (Let it snow! Let it snow, Let it snow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Where has he been, anyway?

I don't know. There's a brick wall which runs down the middle of the Mississippi. Crossing over happens for work, but not much else.

The other thing to remember - according to the media - there isn't much of interest between the mountain ranges, except for the Cubs. They haven't gone looking recently. No big conferences. No major breaks in any of these cases or juicy details.
6 posted on 01/16/2003 6:35:40 AM PST by Desdemona (Pitchers and Catchers report in 29 days. And it's snowing (whine))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
This is all very well, but in the end it all comes down to episcopal cojones. If AmChurch bishops are negligent or malfeasant -- and they are -- then the publication of
"new" guidelines is like so much yelling in the face of a hurricane.
7 posted on 01/16/2003 7:07:42 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
If you're referring to Wilton Gregory, he's a bishop not an archbishop.
8 posted on 01/16/2003 7:29:19 AM PST by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I'm glad to see these guidelines. If nothing else, orthodox Catholics always have the pope in their corner. And this pope does have a paper trail doesn't he? He will be cited for generations to come. Viva il papa!
9 posted on 01/16/2003 8:09:06 AM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The Vatican told Catholic politicians on Thursday they must oppose laws on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriages and can not accept compromises

So what's next?
The Seventh Day Adventists Church told their politicians on Thursday they must oppose blood banks and transfusions and can not accept compromises?

The Christian Scientist Mother Church told their politicians on Thursday they must oppose laws giving access to medical care because only prayer was appropriate and it can not accept compromises?

And late news from Rome,
"The Vatican told Catholic politicians on Thursday that war with Iraq was wrong and they must give Saddam a big wet kiss and can not accept compromises"?
10 posted on 01/16/2003 8:15:48 AM PST by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
And late news from Rome, "The Vatican told Catholic politicians on Thursday that war with Iraq was wrong and they must give Saddam a big wet kiss and can not accept compromises"?

Not at all. Just a demand for a full accounting of why a war would be just and necessary. If it is, the Vatican will back it. They're not convinced yet.
11 posted on 01/16/2003 8:18:29 AM PST by Desdemona (Pitchers and Catchers report in 29 days. And it's snowing (whine))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
The Vatican stressed that it wasn't trying to dictate policy or interfere in matters of state...

Can you spot the lie in this statement?

;)

Next to come - Vatican demands that Catholic politicians:

- Oppose the death penalty;

- Mandate the redistribution of wealth;

- Oppose American defense measures;

- Support trade unions;

- Oppose all support of Israel....

And on and on and on.....

12 posted on 01/16/2003 8:51:10 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
It no longer matters if the Vatican backs the war. The cooncerns of the Vatican are no longer relevant to American foreign policy - a good thing, IMHO.
13 posted on 01/16/2003 8:53:04 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
The cooncerns of the Vatican are no longer relevant to American foreign policy...

President Bush appears to think otherwise. He has gone to visit the pope twice in his presidency and has made numerous visits to American prelates. Apparantly he doesn't share your contempt for the Catholic Church.

14 posted on 01/16/2003 8:59:38 AM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
The Vatican told Catholic politicians...

That's the humble supremacy of the Christian message; all you need to do is to remind your brethren the precepts of the Gospel.
How many divisions has the Pope...? None!

15 posted on 01/16/2003 9:13:52 AM PST by heyheyhey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
<> LOL. I am glad it was just "yelling" into the hurricane..."
16 posted on 01/16/2003 9:30:07 AM PST by Catholicguy (St Ignatius "if anyone follows him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: APBaer




The End of Bush the Bold




December 31, 2002
To read the conservative and neoconservative press, you’d think that President George W. Bush combined the military genius of Napoleon, the courage of Coriolanus, and the moral wisdom of Confucius. My own view is that he confirms the truth of the adage “Never send a boy to do a man’s job.”

Actually, the presidency is more a Superman’s job. Nobody should be given — or trusted with — that much power and responsibility. Nobody can possibly handle it.

By abandoning our Constitution, in which the legislative branch is supreme, we have permitted the executive branch to assume a centrality it was never meant to have. The president is now said to be our “leader.” He’s expected to provide governance, protection, economic expertise, geopolitical cunning, and inspiration, among other things; and of course he also has to have a talent for raising money and winning elections.

Rare is the man who can master even one of these disparate, unrelated, almost miscellaneous skills. Requiring all of them is like asking a single individual to excel at playing the harpsichord, logical theory, standup comedy, chess, and pole-vaulting.

In these terms, nobody can be a good president. He can only play one on TV. Reagan was superb at this impersonation; Bill Clinton might have been just as good, if only he hadn’t set an unhappy precedent by splashing his personal foibles onto the front pages.

But Bush? For most of his first year in the Oval Office he gave us the impression he was lost in the job. After the 9/11 attacks, however, he seemed to achieve a new stature. Maybe we were right the first time.

In the wake of the attacks, Bush adopted the posture of Gary Cooper in High Noon. He played a resolute hero who knew what he was doing. It flew with the public and most of the pundits; even his liberal critics were impressed. But he quickly diverted from a “war on terrorism” to an irrelevant war on Iraq.

He sealed his obsession with Iraq by naming it one of the three points on an “axis of evil,” along with Iran and North Korea. He said Iraq posed an urgent danger because it was ruled by a cruel tyrant bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and threatening the whole region, if not the whole world.

Well, someone answering this lurid description has now stepped forward, and it isn’t Saddam Hussein. It’s North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.

Kim has nukes, and he’s not hiding it. He’s bragging about it. He dares Bush to stop him. He passes the “cruel tyrant” test with flying colors. He’s a Communist of the Stalin-Mao ilk, permitting mass starvation in his country rather than relaxing his iron grip. He seems quite cheerfully willing to go to war with his neighbors. And this is to say nothing of his funny teeth and haircut: he even looks eerie.

How cruel is he? Well, desperate North Koreans are actually risking their sorry lives to flee to China, making China the first Communist country ever to have an illegal immigrant problem. The North Korean media call Kim “the Dear Leader.”

So how is Bush handling this certified monster? Very awkwardly. In amusing contrast to his tough talk about prostrate Iraq, Bush is treating North Korea as a diplomatic problem, nothing urgent. What about those weapons of mass destruction? Surely we can resolve our little differences like gentlemen. What about the “axis of evil”? Just a figure of speech, it seems. No hard feelings.

Kim seems to feel differently. He may be crazy, but he’s not stupid. When he heard Bush speak of that “axis of evil,” he heard “hit list,” and he figured North Korea’s turn might be coming when Bush was finished with the Middle East.

So Kim decided to upset Bush’s schedule by shaking nukes in his face before he was ready. Why wait for war at Bush’s convenience? Why not challenge him preemptively, as it were? Sure enough, Bush, the brave cowboy, backed off fast. He realized he wasn’t dealing with a mere Saddam Hussein.

So much for Bush the Bold. Yes, the presidency is too big a job for any man, but Bush, it’s now clear, is far, far out of his depth. Publishing his hit list was an act of the most puerile bravado.



17 posted on 01/16/2003 9:32:32 AM PST by Catholicguy (St Ignatius "if anyone follows him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
<> War with Iraq? You've got to be kidding. This is the Deathstar against a guy on a goat.

Daddy's Desert Storm I took a little over a month; 1/16/91 - 2/27/91.

Any bets thie one ends faster?

Dubya gives State of the Union address Jan.28. The Super Bowl is on Jan 27. Look for Son of Desert Storm I to begin Sunday -late..or early Monday so he can walk into the joint session to tumultuous applause as the "Commander in Chief."

If you are in Vegas, take America and "under" in the 30 days over/under

18 posted on 01/16/2003 9:50:58 AM PST by Catholicguy (St Ignatius "if anyone follows him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
I am glad it was just "yelling"

Given that we're talking about something useful issuing from the Vatican, the micturative metaphor seemed, well, unseemly.

19 posted on 01/16/2003 10:19:49 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Well maybe a little disapointing but we as faithful can also push the issue. Holding back the weekly offering and demanding that things be done is in our power....
20 posted on 01/16/2003 10:24:57 AM PST by .45MAN (Less Law more Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Another example of "catholic lite". How disappointing!

It might be more a case of an iron fist in a velvet glove. It might give those Catholic politicians some pause and make them think about the final results of their votes.

If the Vatican had come out directly with an 'excommunication' notice, don't you think those same politicians would have immediately gotten their backs up and taken the attitude "They can't tell ME what to do!" It is human nature to not want to be controlled. I believe The Vatican understands this, and wants to 'enlighten' those folks rather than turn them right off!

21 posted on 01/16/2003 11:12:31 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Two years ago, Pope John Paul II made More the patron saint for politicians. ``He taught by his life and his death that 'man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality,''' the document said.

BUMP!!!!!!

22 posted on 01/16/2003 11:16:46 AM PST by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
What happened to Osama Bin Laden? This war won't be our finest hour.
23 posted on 01/16/2003 11:35:35 AM PST by Codie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Two years ago, Pope John Paul II made More the patron saint for politicians. ``He taught by his life and his death that 'man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality,''' the document said. In 1935 Pius XI went forward with the vanonization for More, waiving the usual miracle verification, saying that he--the pope--wanted each man to know exactly what is expected of him. War was on the horizon.
24 posted on 01/16/2003 12:01:13 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
1935 Pius XI went forward with the vanonization for More, waiving the usual miracle verification

<> Pius, Typical modernist changing the rules.....<>

25 posted on 01/16/2003 12:34:31 PM PST by Catholicguy (St Ignatius "if anyone follows him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
This is the Deathstar against a guy on a goat.

Perfect analogy, with your usual pinch of hilarity. Bravo.

26 posted on 01/16/2003 12:57:17 PM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: APBaer; Desdemona; St.Chuck; sitetest
<> From Jeffrey Tucker's review of David Frum's "The Right Man:The Surprise Prersidencey of George Bush W. Bush.<>

They are not serious enough to put much thought into the effects of their actions on the country, on liberty, on the world, or much of anything else. Not a word in this book indicates that the White House has any sense of the moral and practical responsibilities associated with heading the world's biggest state. But they are serious enough to believe that they have somehow been blessed by the god democracy to make big, important decisions. Paul O'Neil, who was just fired as Treasury secretary, is right that it is all about "deluding the people" into believing something that is not true.

In his first meeting with Bush, soon after the inauguration, Frum reports that the president had only one firm policy item backed by real conviction: "his determination to dig Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq." This was six months before 9-11, and two years before weapons inspections. Why should anyone take seriously the idea that Bush is waiting for Iraq to comply with anything? Though Iraq was not discussed much during the campaign, the secret plan vengeance was always there.

<> Fortunately, the Vatican knows this Iraq War is all about revenge,propaganda, smoke, mirrors and bovine excrement<>

27 posted on 01/17/2003 9:57:32 AM PST by Catholicguy (St Ignatius "if anyone follows him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
" Fortunately, the Vatican knows this Iraq War is all about revenge,propaganda, smoke, mirrors and bovine excrement"

Perhaps it is by a miraculous "vision" that you can "know" what the Vatican "knows"?
28 posted on 01/17/2003 10:39:14 AM PST by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
<> Not at all. No visions are necessary. Every morning I recieve a Fax from the Vatican detailing what the Theme of that day shall be; and, the Fax also contains a list of "talking points." You don't think I come up with this outrageous stuff on my own, do you?

For the last four months, I have been ordered to face-down the Schismatic Orcs,and, frankly, it is getting tiresome. They never sleep.

I have enjoyed the Fax's of the last day or so because they dealt with Just War, Political Probity, Common Sense, Natural Law, ect.

BTW, it is both a common, and false, view that we Catholic operatives get Holiday weekends off because they are Holy Days. However, that is not true...We have to work MLK Day. He really wasn't a Saint:)<>

29 posted on 01/17/2003 11:14:19 AM PST by Catholicguy (St Ignatius "if anyone follows him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
"I have been ordered to face-down the Schismatic Orcs,and, frankly, it is getting tiresome. They never sleep."

I recall the term is "mitosis."
30 posted on 01/17/2003 11:20:04 AM PST by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: APBaer; sitetest
<> Well, "mitosis" is a cool word...but I was speaking of Schismatic Orcs (SSPX'ers and their succorers) who never sleep - they are just re-energised by the lighting (schismatic publications) issuing from the wand of Lord Saruman (Rev. Peter Scott, Williamson et al)and they try and capture the Ring (Keys to the Kingdom) from the Pope's faithful, and humble, servants on their Pilgrimmage to the Heavenly Kingdom<>
(
31 posted on 01/17/2003 12:30:10 PM PST by Catholicguy (St Ignatius "if anyone follows him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Dear Catholicguy,

"...they try and capture the Ring (Keys to the Kingdom) from the Pope's faithful, and humble, servants on their Pilgrimmage to the Heavenly Kingdom<>"

LOL!

The end of this story has already been Foretold by One Who cannot lie.

;-)


sitetest
32 posted on 01/17/2003 12:45:16 PM PST by sitetest (Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
<> I love being in a contest where victory has been pre-ordained.

It si like being an Oakland Raider this year<>

33 posted on 01/18/2003 3:32:01 AM PST by Catholicguy (St Ignatius "if anyone follows him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
I should have guessed that you'd figure out a way to disparage MLK in some snide little way. I'm trying to recall the courageous opposition shown by Catholic clerics and laity first toward slavery, then toward Jim Crow and legalized segregation into the 1960s in Catholic areas of Louisiana, Mississippi and South Alabama, and seem to be drawing a blank.

Can you tell me the great efforts made by the vast majority of Southern Catholics toward the end of segregation? Thanks.

34 posted on 01/18/2003 6:18:38 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
But if the Pope had directed them to oppose it (segregation; Jim Crow) you'd have been crowing about his next orders to "redistribute the wealth," "support unions," and blah, blah, blah. With you it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. You aren't interested in debate, but mere gainsaying. V's wife.
35 posted on 01/18/2003 6:29:18 AM PST by ventana (Mary, help of Christians, pray for us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ventana
The Pope didn't direct them to oppose slavery, and a century later, didn't direct them to oppose segregation. Whether by moral ineptitude or by design, it always seems that the Vatican seems to prefer a world with a small number of oligarchs and a large number of impoverished peasants, which are conveniently easy to control. I call it "global Guatemalicization", named after the impoverished Catholic peasantry of Central America. An independent, economically self sufficient middle class doesn't integrate well into the Vatican mindset - they're more likely to throw off the yoke.
36 posted on 01/18/2003 6:41:17 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
And yet a dutiful middle class here and elsewhere is tolerant, educates their children not to be racist, and is faithful to the church: attending mass, supporting their Catholic schools, living their lives and helping the less fortunate with a helping hand. I see it right in my inner city parish: we provide a ton of help to the less fortunate: clothing for infants of the poor; food for the hungry; prison ministry; a building made available for the local headstart program. I see it in the charitable works of my daugther's Catholic school--more of the aforementioned. Or my son's Catholic high school--an incredibly well organized Christmas party down in New York city's village at a Salesian run parochial school serving the poor. A bus full of pro-life young men, middle and upper class kids, going to the March for Life on Wednesday where they will freeze their tails off! Because they think it's right. They are not so cynical as you Chancellor.

I attended a friend's funeral in Harlem two months ago at the Church of the Resurrection--it runs a parochial school in a clean, sound building within the Church. Supported by funds siphoned from the collection plates of the suburban middle class, many of whom can't afford Catholic schools for their own children, and yet the charity continues. And I will bet most of the kids at that school or at the Headstart building are Catholic. I see that there is a great deal of fruitfulness from the virtue of charity inspired by a Catholic faith. You may have a point that the hierarchy is slow to act, but knowledgeable Catholics will point out that Saints don't usually come from the hierarchy--that doesn't mean we don't need a hierarchy. V's wife.

37 posted on 01/18/2003 6:56:37 AM PST by ventana (Mary, help of Christians, pray for us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Dear CP,

The Catholic Church loudly opposed segregation, even prior to the 1950s. The Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Washington were integrated prior to Brown vs. Board of Education.

In Louisiana, through the 1950s and early 1960s, Archbishop Rummel pronounced that pro-segregationist Catholic legislators who voted for specific pro-segregation legislation incurred automatic excommunication. In 1962, he formally excommunicated three specific individuals for, "hinder[ing] his orders or provok[ing] the devoted people of this venerable archdiocese to disobedience or rebellion in the matter of opening our schools to all Catholic children".

In fact, if you do a little googling for yourself, you will find references to opposition to John Kennedy in 1960 on the basis that he would be forced to toe the pro-integrationist line of the Catholic Church.


sitetest
38 posted on 01/18/2003 6:57:04 AM PST by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ventana
And I will bet most of the kids at that school or at the Headstart building are Catholic. Are NOT Catholic

Chancellor, since I suspect debate would be your strong suit, please restrict yourself to legitimate argumentation. The "when did you stop beating your wife" style is beneath your ability. V's wife.

39 posted on 01/18/2003 7:01:40 AM PST by ventana (Mary, help of Christians, pray for us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sitetest; ventana
Intriguing - this was the first one I clicked on:

ARCHBISHOP FRANCIS RUMMEL - In 1953, Archbishop Francis Rummel gave full support to mostly black sugar cane workers on strike in south Louisiana. In a 1956 pastoral letter, Rummel said that racial segregation was "morally wrong and sinful" and insisted that "the alleged mental defects, moral and criminal propensities, economic short comings and social disabilities," far from being an indictment of black people and an argument against integration, was "an indictment against continuing segregation." Rummel promised to integrate the Catholic schools "no earlier than September 1956."He then ran into a storm of protest. The Catholic schools were finally integrated in 1962, two years after the first public schools. Historian Adam Fairclough has written, "Instead of setting a moral and practical example to the public schools, the church set an example of procrastination and delay".

As I went through the list of names and the credit for a passion for social justice and civil rights, I got a sudden mental notion that our Catholic FReepers would scold those same progressive clerics as being a source for rot.

I find myself wondering who the bad guys really are - the hierarchs and the support for secrecy and authoritarianism, or the liberals who want to decentralize authority and reach out to mankind?

40 posted on 01/18/2003 7:14:44 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
<> As Usual, we were WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, ahead of protestants and secularists when it came to Slavery. NO good deed goes unpunished although it does go unremembered<> Slavery and the Catholic Church -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deluded, slaves to various desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful ourselves and hating one another. But when the kindness and generous love of God our Savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of His mercy, He saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit... Titus 3:3-5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once again the Catholic Church is being accused of another grave scandal. Some people claim that the Church before 1890 was either silent or approved of slavery. It is claimed that no Pope condemned slavery until then. According to one modern theologian: "...one can search in vain through the interventions of the Holy See - those of Pius V, Urban VIII and Benedict XIV - for any condemnation of the actual principle of slavery." [Panzer, p. 2] Other people further claim that the Church changed Her teaching on slavery, so the Church can change Her teachings on other issues too. A recent book, entitled The Popes and Slavery written by Fr. Joel S. Panzer (Alba House, 1996), shows that the Popes did condemn racial slavery as early as 1435. Most of the information below is found in this book. The issue and history of slavery are quite complex. Throughout history, the Church found Herself among cultures practicing slavery and had to deal with it. An early example is St. Paul’s Epistle to Philemon. St. Paul appears to tolerate slavery, but he also warned slave masters that they too have a Master in Heaven who would judge them (Col. 4:1). Due to Her weakness in political affairs, the Church could not stop every evil practice. However, political weakness is quite different than approval. There are many examples of saints buying slaves and then setting them free (e.g. St. Nicholas, Trinitarian Fathers & White Fathers). Unfortunately there were also Catholics and even clergy, who participated in slavery, and their sins caused scandal to the Church. To further complicate this issue, there are different forms of slavery. Even though repugnant to our modern sensitivity, servitude is not always unjust, such as penal servitude for convicted criminals or servitude freely chosen for personal financial reasons. These forms are called just-title servitude. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which brought an end to racial slavery in the U.S., does allow for just-title servitude to punish criminals: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Even today we can see prisoners picking up litter along interstates and highways accompanied by armed guards. Also the 1949 Geneva Conventions allow for detaining power to use the labor of war prisoners under very limiting circumstances (Panzer, p. 3). However, such circumstances are very rare today. During biblical times, a man could voluntarily sell himself into slavery in order to pay off his debts (Deut. 15:12-18). But such slaves were to be freed on the seventh year or the Jubilee year (Lev. 25:54). The Church tolerated just-title servitude for a time because it is not wrong in itself, though it can be seriously abused. The Popes did, however, consistently oppose racial slavery which completely lacks any moral justification. Now we usually think of slavery in terms of innocent people who were unjustly captured and reduced to "beasts of burden" due solely to their race. This was the most common form in the U.S. before the Thirteenth Amendment. This form of slavery, known as racial slavery, began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned by the Popes as early as 1435, fifty-seven years before Columbus discovered America. In 1404, the Spanish discovered the Canary Islands. They began to colonize the island and enslave its people. Pope Eugene IV in 1435 wrote to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote in his Bull, Sicut Dudum: ...They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them... We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands...who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money... [Panzer, p. 8; also pp. 75-78 with original critical Latin text] Those faithful, who did not obey, were excommunicated ipso facto. This is the same punishment imposed today on Catholics who participate in abortion. Some people may claim that Pope Eugene only condemned the practice in the Canary Island and not slavery in general. This claim is hard to accept since he does condemn together this particular case of slavery along with "other various illicit and evil deeds." A century later, the Spanish and Portuguese were colonizing South America. Unfortunately the practice of slavery did not end. Even though far from being a saint, Pope Paul III in 1537 issued a Bull against slavery, entitled Sublimis Deus, to the universal Church. He wrote: ...The exalted God loved the human race so much that He created man in such a condition that he was not only a sharer in good as are other creatures, but also that he would be able to reach and see face to face the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good... Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He (Satan) has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians...be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals... by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples - even though they are outside the faith - ...should not be deprived of their liberty... Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery... [Ibid., pp.79-81 with original critical Latin text] Pope Paul not only condemned the slavery of Indians but also "all other peoples." In his phrase "unheard of before now", he seems to see a difference between this new form of slavery (i.e. racial slavery) and the ancient forms of just-title slavery. A few days before, he also issued a Brief, entitled Pastorale Officium to Cardinal Juan de Tavera of Toledo, which warned the Catholic faithful of excommunication for participating in slavery. Unfortunately Pope Paul made reference to the King of Castile and Aragon in this Brief. Under political pressure, the Pope later retracted this Brief but did not annul the Bull. It is interesting to note that even though he retracted his Brief, Popes Gregory XIV, Urban VIII and Benedict XIV still recognized and confirmed its authority against slavery and the slave trade. Popes Gregory XIV (Cum Sicuti, 1591), Urban VIII (Commissum Nobis, 1639) and Benedict XIV (Immensa Pastorum, 1741) also condemned slavery and the slave trade. Unlike the earlier papal letters, these excommunications were more directed towards the clergy than the laity. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo. Its main focus was against slave trading, but it also clearly condemned racial slavery: We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples. [Ibid., pp.101] Unfortunately a few American bishops misinterpreted this Bull as condemning only the slave trade and not slavery itself. Bishop John England of Charleston actually wrote several letters to the Secretary of State under President Van Buren explaining that the Pope, in In Supremo, did not condemn slavery but only the slave trade (Ibid., pp. 67-68). With all these formal condemnations, it is a shame that the Popes were largely ignored by the Catholic laity and clergy. Two Catholic nations were largely involved with slave trafficking. Many Catholics at that time owned or sold slaves. Even some Catholic bishops during the 19th-century appeared to support slavery. The Popes were so ignored that some people today claim that they were silent. These sins brought great scandal to Christ’s Church. Unfortunately history does repeat itself. Today the majority of Catholics admit to using artificial contraceptives, even though the Popes have condemned contraception (e.g. Humane vitae, Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370, 2399). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIHIL OBSTAT: Reverend Mark D. Huber, J.C.L. Censor Librorum IMPRIMATUR: Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D. Bishop of Lincoln November 3, 1999 The NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR are official declarations that a book or a pamphlet is free from doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed. ______________________________________
41 posted on 01/18/2003 7:17:52 AM PST by Catholicguy (St Ignatius "if anyone follows him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
<> As Usual, we were WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, ahead of protestants and secularists when it came to Slavery. NO good deed goes unpunished although it does go unremembered<>

Slavery and the Catholic Church

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deluded, slaves to various desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful ourselves and hating one another. But when the kindness and generous love of God our Savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of His mercy, He saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit... Titus 3:3-5

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once again the Catholic Church is being accused of another grave scandal. Some people claim that the Church before 1890 was either silent or approved of slavery. It is claimed that no Pope condemned slavery until then. According to one modern theologian: "...one can search in vain through the interventions of the Holy See - those of Pius V, Urban VIII and Benedict XIV - for any condemnation of the actual principle of slavery." [Panzer, p. 2] Other people further claim that the Church changed Her teaching on slavery, so the Church can change Her teachings on other issues too. A recent book, entitled The Popes and Slavery written by Fr. Joel S. Panzer (Alba House, 1996), shows that the Popes did condemn racial slavery as early as 1435. Most of the information below is found in this book.

The issue and history of slavery are quite complex. Throughout history, the Church found Herself among cultures practicing slavery and had to deal with it. An early example is St. Paul’s Epistle to Philemon. St. Paul appears to tolerate slavery, but he also warned slave masters that they too have a Master in Heaven who would judge them (Col. 4:1). Due to Her weakness in political affairs, the Church could not stop every evil practice. However, political weakness is quite different than approval. There are many examples of saints buying slaves and then setting them free (e.g. St. Nicholas, Trinitarian Fathers & White Fathers). Unfortunately there were also Catholics and even clergy, who participated in slavery, and their sins caused scandal to the Church.

To further complicate this issue, there are different forms of slavery. Even though repugnant to our modern sensitivity, servitude is not always unjust, such as penal servitude for convicted criminals or servitude freely chosen for personal financial reasons. These forms are called just-title servitude. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which brought an end to racial slavery in the U.S., does allow for just-title servitude to punish criminals: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Even today we can see prisoners picking up litter along interstates and highways accompanied by armed guards. Also the 1949 Geneva Conventions allow for detaining power to use the labor of war prisoners under very limiting circumstances (Panzer, p. 3). However, such circumstances are very rare today. During biblical times, a man could voluntarily sell himself into slavery in order to pay off his debts (Deut. 15:12-18). But such slaves were to be freed on the seventh year or the Jubilee year (Lev. 25:54). The Church tolerated just-title servitude for a time because it is not wrong in itself, though it can be seriously abused. The Popes did, however, consistently oppose racial slavery which completely lacks any moral justification.

Now we usually think of slavery in terms of innocent people who were unjustly captured and reduced to "beasts of burden" due solely to their race. This was the most common form in the U.S. before the Thirteenth Amendment. This form of slavery, known as racial slavery, began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned by the Popes as early as 1435, fifty-seven years before Columbus discovered America. In 1404, the Spanish discovered the Canary Islands. They began to colonize the island and enslave its people. Pope Eugene IV in 1435 wrote to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote in his Bull, Sicut Dudum:

...They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them... We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands...who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money... [Panzer, p. 8; also pp. 75-78 with original critical Latin text]

Those faithful, who did not obey, were excommunicated ipso facto. This is the same punishment imposed today on Catholics who participate in abortion. Some people may claim that Pope Eugene only condemned the practice in the Canary Island and not slavery in general. This claim is hard to accept since he does condemn together this particular case of slavery along with "other various illicit and evil deeds."

A century later, the Spanish and Portuguese were colonizing South America. Unfortunately the practice of slavery did not end. Even though far from being a saint, Pope Paul III in 1537 issued a Bull against slavery, entitled Sublimis Deus, to the universal Church. He wrote:

...The exalted God loved the human race so much that He created man in such a condition that he was not only a sharer in good as are other creatures, but also that he would be able to reach and see face to face the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good... Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He (Satan) has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians...be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals... by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples - even though they are outside the faith - ...should not be deprived of their liberty... Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery... [Ibid., pp.79-81 with original critical Latin text]

Pope Paul not only condemned the slavery of Indians but also "all other peoples." In his phrase "unheard of before now", he seems to see a difference between this new form of slavery (i.e. racial slavery) and the ancient forms of just-title slavery. A few days before, he also issued a Brief, entitled Pastorale Officium to Cardinal Juan de Tavera of Toledo, which warned the Catholic faithful of excommunication for participating in slavery. Unfortunately Pope Paul made reference to the King of Castile and Aragon in this Brief. Under political pressure, the Pope later retracted this Brief but did not annul the Bull. It is interesting to note that even though he retracted his Brief, Popes Gregory XIV, Urban VIII and Benedict XIV still recognized and confirmed its authority against slavery and the slave trade.

Popes Gregory XIV (Cum Sicuti, 1591), Urban VIII (Commissum Nobis, 1639) and Benedict XIV (Immensa Pastorum, 1741) also condemned slavery and the slave trade. Unlike the earlier papal letters, these excommunications were more directed towards the clergy than the laity. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo. Its main focus was against slave trading, but it also clearly condemned racial slavery:

We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples. [Ibid., pp.101]

Unfortunately a few American bishops misinterpreted this Bull as condemning only the slave trade and not slavery itself. Bishop John England of Charleston actually wrote several letters to the Secretary of State under President Van Buren explaining that the Pope, in In Supremo, did not condemn slavery but only the slave trade (Ibid., pp. 67-68).

With all these formal condemnations, it is a shame that the Popes were largely ignored by the Catholic laity and clergy. Two Catholic nations were largely involved with slave trafficking. Many Catholics at that time owned or sold slaves. Even some Catholic bishops during the 19th-century appeared to support slavery. The Popes were so ignored that some people today claim that they were silent. These sins brought great scandal to Christ’s Church. Unfortunately history does repeat itself. Today the majority of Catholics admit to using artificial contraceptives, even though the Popes have condemned contraception (e.g. Humane vitae, Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370, 2399).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIHIL OBSTAT: Reverend Mark D. Huber, J.C.L. Censor Librorum IMPRIMATUR: Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D. Bishop of Lincoln November 3, 1999 The NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR are official declarations that a book or a pamphlet is free from doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed. ______________________________________

42 posted on 01/18/2003 7:20:02 AM PST by Catholicguy (St Ignatius "if anyone follows him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Dear CP,

First you criticize our hierarchs for not being out in front on opposing segregation. So, I cite for you a specific instance where our hierarchs were out in front on opposing segregation, often against the wishes of their own Catholic people.

I actually cited for you a case where the hierarchy opposed segregation so forcefully that they resorted to excommunication against many of their own recalcitrant people.

Then your next criticism is essentially a criticism of the laity. Well, of course. In this case, that was the whole point. To vindicate the Catholic hierarch even against his own recalcitrant laity. Your post #36 was a criticism of the hierarchy. I offered a defense of the hierarchs. Your latest post is merely an attempt to change the subject.

Catholics, being good Americans, often were no different than other Americans on the issue of desegregation. Many (but not all) had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of desegregation by their hierarchs.

One point of your post #36 had been that the Church had not opposed segregation. Though many of her laity did not oppose it, the hierarchy did, even to the point of excommunicating laity who differed.

The point has been made. You are shown in error. Now, if you wish, you may change the subject.

;-)

sitetest

43 posted on 01/18/2003 7:25:53 AM PST by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Hierarchs who support secretism and cover for perv perps are bad guys, as every RC Freeper who frequents these threads, that I know of, is on record as agreeing with; liberals who combine an embrace of social justice with abortion and gay rights, are bad guys, as every RC Freeper who frequents these threads, that I know of, is on record as agreeing with.

Next? V's wife.

44 posted on 01/18/2003 7:39:28 AM PST by ventana (Mary, help of Christians, pray for us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

<> For some, facts are immaterial. But, MLK is hardly a model for any American despite his personal courage<>
45 posted on 01/19/2003 4:43:25 AM PST by Catholicguy (St. Ignatius: "..if anyone follows him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Dear Catholicguy,

Dr. King may not have been a saint (or at least, some of his activities were hardly saintly), but nonetheless, I give myself the day off.

I love these four-day weekends.


sitetest
46 posted on 01/19/2003 5:54:31 AM PST by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
Your precious quadruplets,

POST #26

POST #10

POST #4

POST #3

47 posted on 01/19/2003 4:12:22 PM PST by heyheyhey (Somebody stop the Raelian cloning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: heyheyhey
Thank you for pointing out, more elegantly than I ever could, how often you yearners for a theocracy have posted your most recent orders from the Vatican on how to implement your dreams.
48 posted on 01/19/2003 4:35:17 PM PST by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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