Scranton bishop threatens to deny sacrament to Casey

Republican Herald ^ | April 30, 2009 | BORYS KRAWCZENIUK

[netmilsmom]

>>I was goaded into a very bad reaction... <<

All of us have been there, my FRiend.

[papertyger]

...ask Latin Rite politicians if they intend to represent their bishops’ interpretation of Latin Church dogma or their constituents.

You have a problem with doing what is right as opposed to doing what is wrong?

[papertyger]

Political action is not what Orthodoxy is about, though some here in America would make it that way.

In America, politics is not an option by virture of the citizen's responsibility unlike other governments throughout human history. Withdrawing from the political discussion, Orthodox or otherwise, is tantamount to "burying the talent."

[Kolokotronis]

“You have a problem with doing what is right as opposed to doing what is wrong?”

Not at all; I have a problem with politicians who take their orders from hierarchs, clerics or preachers of any kind, especially if those orders are coupled with threats of excommunication. When those orders are given by, in general, truly incompetent theologians who have heretically raised a doctrine which only the Roman Church calls dogma to the most important religious consideration in the lives of its members, then I think its plainly time to vote for someone else.

Look, here and there one will find politicians who are pro-life honestly because they were properly catechised. In other words, they come by their pro-life convictions honestly. The pol I want gone is the person who will knuckle under to threats from some mitered egomaniac.

You know, if The Church did even a half way decent job of catechesis, this wouldn’t be a problem, at least for Roman Catholic pols. Even so, resistance to Roman hierarchs dictating American law will likely remain very, very strong.

[Kolokotronis]

“Withdrawing from the political discussion, Orthodox or otherwise, is tantamount to “burying the talent.”

I disagree. Hierarchs, monastics and lower clergy can always withdraw from the discussion to the extent that their continued involvement causes increasing secularization of the Church. For lay people, on the other hand, it seems to me preferable that their votes and actions be informed by their religious beliefs, though of course that could lead, since the massive influx of Mohammedans into this country over the past 10 years or so, many of them with the active assistance and financial support of the USCCB, to the sort of “religiously informed voting” few if any of us here on FR would like to see. Mark my words, within a few years, Mohammedans will be dominating the vote in some areas of this country, though from the pov of the right wing of the Latin Church, that might be good since on a number of social issues, Mohammedanism and Roman Catholicism have common agendas, as bishops in Mohammedan infested areas of this country seem compelled to remind us.

[papertyger]

Not at all; I have a problem with politicians who take their orders from hierarchs, clerics or preachers of any kind, especially if those orders are coupled with threats of excommunication.

Should your concern not be for the quality of the decision rather than how said politician came to it?

If not, why?

When those orders are given by, in general, truly incompetent theologians who have heretically raised a doctrine which only the Roman Church calls dogma to the most important religious consideration in the lives of its members...

Orders such as...?

What is this "most important consideration" to which you refer?

Even so, resistance to Roman hierarchs dictating American law will likely remain very, very strong.

As will the "commitment to sex education."

[nmh]

It won’t matter.

Look at Pelosi.

I can’t tell you how many friends of ours that are Catholic VOTED FOR THIS FREAK. They are good people. They lead a moral life and they voted for Obama. They got caught up in the skin color issue and socialism.