Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Despite abortion views, Biden, Pelosi receive communion in Vatican Mass [Catholic Caucus]
Washington Times ^ | 3/19/2013 | Dave Boyer

Posted on 03/19/2013 8:44:43 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM

Edited on 03/20/2013 8:50:07 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

Vice President Joseph R. Biden and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi both received communion during the Mass to celebrate the installation of Pope Francis in spite of their pro-choice position on abortion.

The vice president’s office confirmed Tuesday night that both he and Mrs. Pelosi took communion during the Mass at St. Peter’s Square in Rome.

Excerpt, read more at Washington Times


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: canon915; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last
This is troubling.
1 posted on 03/19/2013 8:44:43 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

and how about gay views?


2 posted on 03/19/2013 8:48:31 PM PDT by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Alex Murphy; Religion Moderator

This is a Catholic Caucus thread, thanks.


4 posted on 03/19/2013 8:53:21 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

It is, although I’ll be willing to give it a little time. There’s a good chance the Pope didn’t know who these clowns were, or what their positions were, or he might be waiting until he’s settled to announce them excommunicated.

Let’s watch with cautious eyes.


5 posted on 03/19/2013 8:53:57 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

When was the last time they went to confession?


6 posted on 03/19/2013 8:54:07 PM PDT by phormer phrog phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Some Catholics argue that politicians whose positions on abortion and contraception conflict with church teachings should not receive communion.

Some Catholics actually believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

7 posted on 03/19/2013 8:55:00 PM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

A Vatican spokesman said Monday that Francis won’t personally be distributing communion — the wafer and wine that Catholics believe transform into the blood and body of Christ when consecrated during Mass — but that it will instead done by 500 priests assisting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/biden-pope-francis-installation-communion_n_2903342.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics


8 posted on 03/19/2013 8:56:14 PM PDT by massmike (At least no one is wearing a "Ron Paul - 2016" tee shirt........yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: massmike

But Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, part of the conclave that elected Francis, has said he would offer Pelosi communion despite her views on abortion because he didn’t believe communion should be used as a weapon. “We never -– the Church just didn’t use Communion this way. It wasn’t a part of the way we do things, and it wasn’t a way we convinced Catholic politicians to appropriate the faith and live it and apply it; the challenge has always been to convince people,” Wuerl said in a 2010 interview. His position would logically extend to Biden. The vice president’s bishop, Francis Malooly of Wilmington, Del., has also said he would not deny communion to Biden.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/biden-pope-francis-installation-communion_n_2903342.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics


9 posted on 03/19/2013 8:58:12 PM PDT by massmike (At least no one is wearing a "Ron Paul - 2016" tee shirt........yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

We could all pray for a Eucharistic miracle, maybe the host will turn to stone. God, are you listening?


10 posted on 03/19/2013 8:59:52 PM PDT by Guardian Sebastian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Actually, it would have been a diplomatic nightmare for the Pope to have refused them communion.

But, don’t worry, there is someone higher than the Pope who is taking notes.


11 posted on 03/19/2013 9:00:04 PM PDT by CyberAnt ("America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth" (in spite of BO))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phormer phrog phlyer
When was the last time they went to confession?

Who knows?

And that's the problem. Their support for abortion and faggotry is public, repeated, and notorious. It is an ongoing scandal both to the faithful and to "others".

IMO, the public and scandalous nature of their conduct cries out for an equally public censure from their bishops, for a formal excommunication. Such action would be merciful; a call to repentance.

12 posted on 03/19/2013 9:02:57 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
[Note: The following memorandum was sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick and was made public in the first week of July 2004.]

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individual’s judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com


13 posted on 03/19/2013 9:03:27 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

They say “views” as if it’s merely an opinion they hold. Pelosi and Biden have done more than any single abortionist could ever dream of to prolong this holocaust. And yet, they’re fit to received the consecrated body and blood of our Lord in the eyes of our new pope.

What a mess we’re in.


14 posted on 03/19/2013 9:05:05 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Some men just want to watch the world burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

Indeed.


15 posted on 03/19/2013 9:10:09 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM ("Miserando atque eligendo")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
"But, don’t worry, there is someone higher than the Pope who is taking notes."

Maybe these two hypocrites do things to make THEMSELVES feel good - but it's a terrible sin to mock God!!

16 posted on 03/19/2013 9:12:32 PM PDT by LADY J (You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice you have. - Author Unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Is anyone really surprised by this?


17 posted on 03/19/2013 9:12:41 PM PDT by kevao (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Well done...it is


18 posted on 03/19/2013 9:20:39 PM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

Obama...?


19 posted on 03/19/2013 9:25:56 PM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Yes, troubling. Although, I think it is more troubling that they’re apparently still allowed communion at their local parishes. (As notorious as these people are, it still seems that their local bishops would be in the better position to know more about their “eligibility” to partake). Reading too much into something that didn’t happen once while they were thousands of miles away from the clergy that know them best. If they receive communion next Sunday at home it will disturb me more. (Just my 2 cents’ worth.)


20 posted on 03/19/2013 9:30:34 PM PDT by faithhopecharity (()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

They should have been excummunicated if anything. What a lie! The Catholic Church will not be blessed until it chases these types out!


21 posted on 03/19/2013 9:44:14 PM PDT by vpintheak (Occupy your Brain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity
it is more troubling that they’re apparently still allowed communion at their local parishes.

Which is in clear, continuing violation of Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 document, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles" (see post #13 above.)

Hopefully, Pope Francis will make it a priority to see that, in compliance with the document above and Canon 915, this doesn't happen again, anywhere.

22 posted on 03/19/2013 9:44:43 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM ("Miserando atque eligendo")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

we agree fully!
(given how open and notorious, how long-continuing, and how potentially harmful these cases really are........)

we agree fully and completely


23 posted on 03/19/2013 9:48:28 PM PDT by faithhopecharity (()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

“This is troubling.”

Yes... As Catholic, I guess that opens the doors to anyone going to Confession regardless of Repentance.

If it’s OK for those two who have the blood of babies on their hands, I guess the level of sin that I would worry about is really nothing...

So if I miss Mass some Sunday - So what?

No reason I guess for someone who has been divorced and remarried not to go to Confession.

Lieing, stealing, cheating? No big deal.

Adultery and fornication. Not so bad anymore.

I really think this sends the wrong message to the faithful. It sure lowers the bar...


24 posted on 03/19/2013 9:55:08 PM PDT by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Exactly as I predicted.

Basically the rule is anybody can receive Communion under pretty much any circumstances. You can read canon law all day long, but when the rubber meats the road, pro-aborts are welcome in the Church.


25 posted on 03/19/2013 10:13:22 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

“Some Catholics argue that politicians whose positions on abortion and contraception conflict with church teachings should not receive communion.”

“Some Catholics” would include Pope Francis, based on his earlier writings. Hopefully he will clamp down in time.


26 posted on 03/19/2013 10:17:27 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Pelosi seems to treat her Catholic Faith in the same way that she treats the Constitution. It’s a ‘living thing’ that she can interpret as she sees fit.


27 posted on 03/20/2013 1:09:06 AM PDT by Richard Brandon Abroad (Hey people, it's different over here. Different people, money ... and news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

From what I have learned in my life as a Catholic... one can partake of the Sacrament- Communion, but it is an imperfect Sacrament if one does not truly repent of one’s sins. It basically is a lie.


28 posted on 03/20/2013 1:12:30 AM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
This is troubling.

THANK GOD there were no pix of the Holy Father communicating them. In fact, THANK GOD there were no pix of them receiving.

I am interested to see what happens next. The Holy Father, while Archbishop of Buenos Aires made some fairly unambiguous statements about this situation (calling it Eucharistic Coherence). Perhaps a re-iteration of the statement in light of the application of Can. 915 may be forthocming in the next several months.

On the other hand, Jimmy Akin brought out an interesting point when he said:

And so he may have made a decision similar to the one that Jesus made in allowing Judas to come to the Last Supper, where the betrayer was not kicked out and would ultimately bear responsibilities for his actions before God.

The Holy Father has not hesitated to use the term "Judas" before...so this, too, might make for an interesting statement...if one was made.

After all, we all know what happened to the original Judas:


29 posted on 03/20/2013 1:44:39 AM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Then they have committed sacrilege. Not good.


31 posted on 03/20/2013 3:46:37 AM PDT by al_c (http://www.blowoutcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Wuerl doesn’t get it. No, it’s not a weapon. But by not allowing them to receive it he would be protecting them from committing sacrilege.


32 posted on 03/20/2013 3:49:46 AM PDT by al_c (http://www.blowoutcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kevao
I'm surprised. Either this Pope was blowing smoke when he said politicians who support abortion should be denied communion or he didn't know these two pagans aren't exactly that and someone who did know helped them insult the Church, the Pope, and Canon Law, right at the outset of this Pope's tenure.

Even if someone disagrees with the Pope on this they would have made sure there were either a statement of some sort in advance or that these people would be denied communion if they cared about the Church and the Pope.

Those are the only two alternatives. a) The rot in the Vatican hierarchy is so bad that they're working to publicly defame and embarrass this new Pope as soon as possible, and b) the new Pope is folding and directly contradicting himself the first time he's put to the test.

Which is not surprising when it's now obvious rather than suspect?

33 posted on 03/20/2013 3:53:25 AM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"The Holy Father has not hesitated to use the term "Judas" before...so this, too, might make for an interesting statement...if one was made."

So, average folks aided by the ever insightful and deep thinking media are going to notice subtle statements being made while the Church, the Pope,and Canon Law, are very visibly being beaten with a large mallet by a couple of cartoon characters like Biden and Pelosi, right?

Well, . . . . Ok.

34 posted on 03/20/2013 4:03:08 AM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Wow. Once again the Vatican genuflects to the death culture.


35 posted on 03/20/2013 4:07:16 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

“Wuerl ... has said he would offer Pelosi communion despite her views on abortion because he didn’t believe communion should be used as a weapon”

That’s weak on Wuerl’s part. Does he lack courage? Does he want the false peace of avoiding confrontation? Pelosi doesn’t just have “views” on abortion, she has votes on it. She was on “Meet The Press” once trying to defend her Pro-Abortion votes with some kind of strange reference to St. Thomas Aquinas. It was stupid.


36 posted on 03/20/2013 4:32:27 AM PDT by MDLION ("Trust in the Lord with all your heart" -Proverbs 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Some Catholics argue that politicians whose positions on abortion and contraception conflict with church teachings should not receive communion. Some Catholics actually believe what the Catholic Church teaches.
So what is the official doctrine...should they have received communion?
37 posted on 03/20/2013 5:24:29 AM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag ( EVERY DIME Obama Spends is given to him by the Republicans in the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
They received but not from Pope Francis. Francis only gave communion to deacons. It falls on Biden and Pelosi to abstain from receiving. I think Francis knew that there were going to be Catholic receiving that should not, so he limited himself to who he served.

BTW, the Vatican sent out information about the event but did not invite any individual national representative to the event.

38 posted on 03/20/2013 5:32:11 AM PDT by mware (By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Biden, Pelosi Recieve Communion, For Now

As expected, pro-abortion politicians from the U.S. received communion during the Pope's inaugural mass yesterday.

Of course, this is not a uniquely American problem. Countries from all over the world sent delegations to the inaugural mass and probably more than a few contained pro-abortion pols. Now I don't know if any announcement was made at the hugely attended mass about those, in general terms, that are not prepared to receive communion should abstain. They do this at Christmas and weddings now, thankfully, so I hope they did it there.

At the very least, the Pope avoided the dreaded photo-op of giving communion to one of these pro-abortion pols by not distributing communion himself.

But this issue has to come to a head at some point and perhaps Pope Francis is the one to do it. LiveAction reports that as the former Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, Pope Francis wrote that more than mere reminders not to receive may be needed.

The Catholic Church is clear on its stance against abortion. Yet denying Communion to those who are known to facilitate in an abortion is not always as clear as it should be. Such situations are at times dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Often, the pro-abortion Catholics in question are reminded or encouraged not to partake in Holy Communion. In going against the Church, in these cases by facilitating in an abortion, a person is excommunicated by his or her own actions. More than a mere reminder or sense of encouragement may be needed.

The text itself states:
"we should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals."


So just perhaps, Pope Francis, now so appreciated by the pro-abortion left, may be the Pope to finally put them in their place.

Posted by Patrick Archbold at 3/20/2013 09:16:00 AM


39 posted on 03/20/2013 6:27:57 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM ("Miserando atque eligendo")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

I know. I’m asking a question. Is it a Catholic Caucus thread because you say so?


42 posted on 03/20/2013 7:30:01 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
From the Religion Moderator's profile page:

Types of Religion Forum threads and guidelines pertaining to each:

Religion Forum threads labeled “Prayer:”

Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.

Religion Forum threads labeled “Devotional:”

Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.

Religion Forum threads labeled “Caucus”

Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not currently and actively a member of the caucus group.

For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not currently, actively Catholic, then do not post to the thread.

However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.

The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.

There is little to no tolerance for non-members of a caucus coming onto the caucus thread to challenge whether or not it should be a caucus. Gross disruption usually follows.

If you question whether the article is appropriate for a caucus designation, send me a Freepmail. I'll get to it as soon as I can.

Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”

Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.

Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.

Unlabeled Religion Forum threads:

All other Religion Forum threads are “Open” by default.

Open threads are in a town square format.

Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected

Posters may argue for or against beliefs, deities, religious authorities, etc. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule. “Open” RF debate is often contentious.

It requires thick skin. A poster must be able to make his points while standing his ground, suffering adverse remarks about his beliefs - or letting them roll off his back.

Members of religions which are as much culture as belief sometimes take religious debate personally. If you keep getting your feelings hurt because other posters ridicule or disapprove or hate what you hold dear, then you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”


43 posted on 03/20/2013 7:36:04 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM ("Miserando atque eligendo")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: Responsibility2nd; Religion Moderator
Posters may designate threads posted in the Religion Forum with Caucus status. As there is nothing in the original post that violates Caucus designation guidelines established by the Religion Moderator, I chose to designate this thread as such.

From the Religion Moderator's profile page (emphasis added):

Religion Forum threads labeled “Caucus”

Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not currently and actively a member of the caucus group.

For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not currently, actively Catholic, then do not post to the thread.

However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.

The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.

There is little to no tolerance for non-members of a caucus coming onto the caucus thread to challenge whether or not it should be a caucus. Gross disruption usually follows.

If you question whether the article is appropriate for a caucus designation, send me a Freepmail. I'll get to it as soon as I can.

If you are not currently, actively Catholic, then do not post to this thread. Thanks.

45 posted on 03/20/2013 8:20:45 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM ("Miserando atque eligendo")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
If you question whether an article qualifies for a caucus designation, send me a Freepmail.

Do not disturb a caucus.

For the record, to qualify for an RF caucus designation the article itself - and all reply posts - must not speak for or comment on belief groups which are not members of the caucus. If such statements are made, the thread must be opened so the non-members can speak for themselves.

Whether the RF article also concerns politics, history, philosophy, science, etc. is irrelevant to its designation as a caucus.

46 posted on 03/20/2013 8:28:55 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

In the Light of the Law

A Canon Lawyer's Blog
March 20, 2013

Nancy Pelosi will not change on her own

Communion time in St. Peter’s is, for the vast majority of lay persons (not heads of state, and not folks chosen to receive from the pope), pretty much a mob scene, so there is nothing to be gleaned from the fact that Nancy Pelosi took holy Communion at Pope Francis’ installation Mass—nothing, that is, except that either Pelosi suffers from one of the most malformed consciences in the annals of American Catholic politics or that she is simply hell bent on using her Catholic identity to attack Catholic values at pretty much every opportunity. Certainly, Pelosi’s taking the Sacrament is not, in the slightest, a Roma locuta on pro-abortion Catholics and Communion.

Nancy Pelosi is America’s problem, not Rome’s, and it is obvious that, if left to her own lights, she will never mend her ways. For her sake, therefore, and for those confused by the chronic scandal she gives, Pelosi needs to be formally warned against taking holy Communion for so long as she promotes, as consistent with our Catholic faith, a variety of gravely immoral policies (per cc. 916, 1339); ministers, meanwhile, in her environs need to be directed to withhold Communion from her till advised otherwise by the competent ecclesiastical authority (per c. 915).


47 posted on 03/20/2013 8:39:21 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM ("Miserando atque eligendo")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

” But Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, part of the conclave that elected Francis, has said he would offer Pelosi communion despite her views on abortion because he didn’t believe communion should be used as a weapon. “We never -– the Church just didn’t use Communion this way. It wasn’t a part of the way we do things, and it wasn’t a way we convinced Catholic politicians to appropriate the faith and live it and apply it; the challenge has always been to convince people,” Wuerl said in a 2010 interview. His position would logically extend to Biden. The vice president’s bishop, Francis Malooly of Wilmington, Del., has also said he would not deny communion to Biden. “

Cardinal Wuerl and Bishop Malooly are wrong.

In fact, Cardinal Wuerl is guilty of creating a straw-man to rationalize his disobedience to the Catholic Church.


48 posted on 03/20/2013 8:52:33 AM PDT by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
Cardinal Wuerl and Bishop Malooly are wrong.

Absolutely! I in no way posted that to DEFEND them;I was only pointing out that the Pope himself did not give communion to Biden or Pelosi!

49 posted on 03/20/2013 8:55:48 AM PDT by massmike (At least no one is wearing a "Ron Paul - 2016" tee shirt........yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Revised to comply with stringent Caucus thread rules and reposted

“This is troubling.”

Beyond very troubling.

If the Pope didn’t know what sort of people these two are, why not?

Is Canon Law now invalid, no longer enforced, or only applicable to “little people”, not the political elites?

People don’t think things through. Any “Diplomatic” problem should have been welcomed as an opportunity to point out that it's King Barry and the two clowns he sent who have egg on their faces since they all should have known the clowns would be denied communion. Canon Law clearly says they've excommunicated themselves when they publicly advocated abortion and voted for abortion in direct contradiction to Church Teaching. No only that, they’ve both made very public statements to the effect that they decide for themselves what to believe with Church Teaching being only one element that they consider, not their guiding light as it should be if they are Catholic.

In addition, their public statements put them solidly in the camp with Hans Kung and Karl Rahner as opponents of the Catholic Church, not faithful or any other kind of Catholics no matter what they want to claim to the contrary. The result is, . . . nothing. No matter what sort of screw-up may have happened, there’s no way around the fact that those who have standing in politics, the very same persons the Pope has referred to in the past as needing to be denied Communion, presented themselves and their behavior was ignored.

The case can and will be made that those who have sufficient political clout don’t have to worry about anything the Pope or the Church say. Furthermore, here’s “proof” for people to point to and argue that this Pope is already a hollow shell who doesn’t mean what he says and who can therefore safely be ignored. After all, he just allowed the very people he said should be denied communion, to take communion. Pretty hollow, indeed. No matter what is said to the contrary, there has already been a solid case made that Catholics don’t have anything to worry about when they defy the Church because political power, specifically US political power, nullifies and superceeds Church Teaching and Canon Law.

So, who cares what the HHS mandate says and whether or not it survies a USSC test? Catholics will know they're still free to support politicians who advocate abortion and contraceptives. Which is the battle King Barry and the democrat fascists really care about, the battle over holding onto Catholic votes. The HHS mandate is nice if you can get it, but it’s peanuts compared to losing millions of votes when people think they may actually be called to account over violations of Canon Law.

Especially older, wealthier, Catholic voters who might be starting to worry more about the afterlife than their sex life. Sure, there may be some reason for this other than the Church deliberately putting political standing ahead of Canon Law. So what? As of now, it’s an uphill battle to fight the propaganda that even when politicians deliberately insult the Pope, the Church, and Canon Law, all in one move by even presenting themselves in the first place, the Church will meekly help them make the insult stick.

Either the Truth is important or it’s not.

Either the Church is teaching the Truth, or it’s not.

Either Canon Law applies to Catholics or it doesn’t.

If the Church is teaching the Truth, why does the Truth take a back seat to what may have been portrayed as a diplomatic incident, something that actually doesn’t make any sense at all since this was a Church function they were attending, not a State visit to the Vatican State?

This WILL lead to the Church being mauled by a pack of dogs and probably very soon.

IMHO, it will lead to much worse than any potential “diplomatic incident” and be much more difficult to deal with.

More important than any of that, though, is just how many within Church hierarchy have so little Faith that they worry over potential diplomatic consequences more than over the consequences of ignoring Canon Law and Scripture? That’s the real question, not what sort of scum take advantage of that lack of Faith, but just who the faithless party is that makes this sort of decision if not the Pope. This Pope has made the very public and widely quoted statement that politicians exactly like Pelosi and Biden should be denied communion. I actually believe he would stand by that but I also believe someone made very sure the Pope didn’t recognize these two for what that are.

There are those in the Vatican who are well aware of what sort of scum King Barry sent and they are already working hard to make sure the Pope looks bad over his stand on politicians being refused communion. Just how much help someone has within the hierarchy if they’re working to make the Pope look bad is an exercise left to the reader.

People who understand US politics very, very, well were at work in this and the Vatican not only blew it, they aided and abetted the perps.

JMHO

50 posted on 03/20/2013 9:06:34 AM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 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