Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mrs. Don-o

What does this have to do with the separation of church and state? This is a church matter that has nothing to do with the state. I don’t think I am wrong on this. If I am wrong would someone let me know where I am wrong.


10 posted on 02/03/2020 2:51:08 PM PST by certrtwngnut (4- Do something,,,,even if it's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: certrtwngnut

Here is where you are wrong on this.

Separate it from the state. These people are publicly declaring that they are for abortion as well as promoting abortion legislatively- actively enabling it- abetting

The Church is not saying “do not do that.”

The Church is saying “because you are promoting a grave sin and declaring it publicly without regard for the teaching of the Church, going against Gods will, you are not in communion with the Church and cannot receive communion”

Any Catholic and that is anyone with a second grade level knowledge of the faith, knows that if you are in mortal sin, as in this case, you cannot receive the Eucharist

It is their choice.

It is different for those who have had abortions and are repentant

The difference is being unrepentant. Politicians fall under this because they are obviously and factually unrepentant in their public pronouncements of being either pro abortion or pro life

Same case as celebrities


30 posted on 02/03/2020 4:05:25 PM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: certrtwngnut
What does this have to do with the separation of church and state?

The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment is a prohibition on Congress, period. A priest denying communion to someone can't possibly be a violation of a prohibition on Congress (or state legislators since it applies to the states as well).

Think about how upside down this idiot has things. She is claiming that the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution requires the priest to violate his understanding of his own religion, i.e. prohibits him from exercising his religious beliefs. If anything, the Democrat calling on the priest to resign is arguably in conflict with the First Amendment than anything the priest did, since she is a lawmaker, whereas the priest is outside the government. Of course she was only exercising her free speech which is also protected.

47 posted on 02/03/2020 7:12:04 PM PST by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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