The U.S. bishops continue to hold diverse opinions about whether or not canon law requires one to withhold Communion from pro-abortion politicians.
Many, out of an apparent desire not to alienate those who hold pro-abortion views–as part of a "woo them back gently" strategy–resist the idea that Communion should be withheld from such politicians.
The replies given by some bishops involve arguments that strike one variously as (a) dodges of the real issue, (b) subversive of canon 915, or (c) simply incoherent.
For the record, canon 915 states:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion.
This is the Church’s law. Yet some quotes from bishops in the media give the appearance that the respective bishops have never heard of this canon, which is difficult to believe after the "Can John Kerry receive Communion?" controversy of the 2004 election.
Part of the problem we are encountering at present is that bishops do not like to be pitted against each other in the press and, since there is not a consensus among them about whether canon 915 should be applied to the case of pro-abortion politicians, many are engaging in diplomatic contortions to avoid bringing the disagreement among them into sharp public focus on the eve of an election season.
So we have a significant disagreement among Church leaders on how the Church’s law is to be applied.
Well, that’s why God created the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.
We need an authentic interpretation on this point–one way or the other.
For myself, I am strongly of the opinion that both canon and moral law require the withholding of Communion from a politician with a pro-abortion voting record (even if it’s with an "I’m personally opposed, but" dodge).
But Rome needs to sort this out for the good of the Church–both here in American and wherever in the world abortion is being promoted, which includes Rome’s own back yard: Europe.
It’s time for the Church to take a stand on this, for as canonist Ed Peters writes:
We are living through a terrible, perhaps unprecedented, unraveling of respect for Jesus in the Eucharist. Such a crisis compels all of us, I think, to examine our consciences for how our sins might have contributed to this disaster.
Used to be that if you were outspoken against your Bishop, you would be excommunicated; should you and all who support your site be denied communion for such grave sins?
My friend, please refer to “DA RULZ” 21 & 24:
21. Commenters in the combox are to use either their real name or a (non-offensive, non-spiteful) handle that distinguishes them from others when posting comments. They are not to post comments while leaving the “Name” field blank. It’s rude to expect people to interact with you and give them no way to refer to you. (A Non is the same as leaving it blank)
24. It constitutes rudeness to make inflammatory assertions that one is not prepared to back up by anything more than hearsay (e.g., “Mother Theresa prayed to Hindu idols. I know because my friend said so.”).
It’s almost as if many bishops (for that matter, many priests too) have taken a class in seminary titled “Avoiding Responsibility Through the Creation of False Dichotomies”. It seems like the technique is used repeatedly to avoid taking action when a problem presents itself. It works like this –
Step 1: Describe every troublesome situation as an all-or-nothing scenario. Exaggerate the negative effects of taking action, and ignore the outcome from “doing nothing”. Avoid the concepts of escalation and discipline at all costs.
Step 2: Paint those who insist on taking any real action as “uncharitable” or “unjust”, and make sure that you hint that those who are “uncharitable” are probably more guilty than the original troublemakers. Suggest that perhaps your critics’ attitude is part of the problem. Introduce irrelevant facts to muddy the waters – a little ad hominem goes a long way!
Step 3: Step back and admire your efforts as “charitable” and “demonstrating positive leadership”. If you really feel the need to DO something, write a column for your local diocesan newspaper or parish bulletin describing how painful the whole situation is for you and for those against whom no action has been taken. Think of yourself as “pastoral”.
Optional Step 4: Penalize those who persist in demanding action. They’re nothing but sore losers anyway.
One can see this technique applied to so many areas (Communion for pro-abort politicians, dealing with clergy abuse, liturgical experimentation, etc.) that it’s almost nauseating. I think there is a very good reason why the Church demands celibacy from its priests. Could you imagine what the children of clergy would be like if they were raised in a home with this sort of “discipline”?
What about The situation in San Francisco where the Archbishop gave Communion to a couple of gay men who were dressed up as clown nuns? Who didn’t see anything wrong? I would like to see some action on that!
Committing abortion certainly is a “grave sin.” Requiring abortion is also certainly a “grave sin.” Passing legislation to assist abortion is also a “grave sin,” as is giving someone money so they can have an abortion.
Is “not stopping” abortion similarly a grave sin? Or is it less heinous? If a politician must sacrifice his career to try to stop abortion, must an ordinary citizen sacrifice his for the same end?
It’s easy to throw stones, but we could all do more to stop abortion.
-Turretinfan
It seems pretty straight forward, why there is such confusion I have no idea.
Perhaps the Bishops need a refresher course in Catholic Law 101!
Turretinfan,
Your faith comes before your career.
If your job is a sin you have to quit. Too many use the excuse that its their job, have to feed the family, or try to find every definition of remote that they can. In this day and age some jobs should not be held by a Catholic.
We need more “green martyrs”.
Is “not stopping” abortion similarly a grave sin? Or is it less heinous? If a politician must sacrifice his career to try to stop abortion, must an ordinary citizen sacrifice his for the same end?
A Catholic politician (or anyone for that matter) isn’t required to actively try to stop abortion or be involved in pro-life work. But he or she most not publicly campaign that he will vote for abortion legislation if it comes before them. That’s public scandal. The same rule would apply to a Catholic who doesn’t have a public job but, say, writes a letter promoting abortion to the local newspaper.
Yes, I’m curious myself why the sacrilege in SF hasn’t aroused more commentary than it has. As an Extraordinary Minister myself, I know I’m not to “withhold” communion from someone seeking it…but I don’t know what I would/should do in a case like this. The same questions would arise if Schwartzenegger showed up in my line.
What is the duty of EM here?
I do hope that the Vatican becomes involved in straightening the politian/abortion issue out for US Bishops. What is the point of the hierarchy if they are all allowed to act as if they are independent?
From Dr. Peters:
To be sure, important questions such as the point at which one’s pro-abortion voting record constitutes objective grave sin…
That is not consistent with “others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.” Personally, I don’t see how something requiring pastoral judgement – has the disagreeable activity exceeded tolerable levels? – can be judged by a minister of communion when the ordinary hasn’t judged likewise and has had opportunity.
Just so I don’t get raked over the coals here, I have no issue with politicians being interdicted. In fact, I have difficulty seeing how Archbishop Burke’s notifications of unworthiness to receive aren’t interdicts. I’ll let smarter people reconcile that though.
From Ed Peter’s blog: “McCarrick seems to think there are only two ways to deal with the scandal of pro-abortion Catholic politicians: either withhold the Eucharist from them or work to persuade them of the error of their ways.”
I agree with Karin on the Catholicism 101 refresher course. Every good Catholic knows that when posed with an either/or conundrum the correct answer is both/and.
Given that so many Catholics feel they have a right to receive the Eucharist even when improperly disposed I can see why Cardinal McCarrick (and I’m sure Archbishop Burke also) is worried about turning people permanently away from the Church. But allowing them to persist in their behavior even after being informed of Church teaching will only make things worse.
One question I have is how does this all work with EMHC’s? Have any bishops written instructions about this? I would think that unless the EMHC see’s a person doing something disrespectful directly at Mass they can’t make the choice to deny anyone communion. They would have to be instructed by the priest. Does that mean that if an EMHC knows someone is sinning publicly, they have an obligation to consult the priest before offering them communion?
An even trickier question: Take the example of an EMHC’s brother (or someone else they know intimately) who is divorced and civilly remarried and makes statements around friends and family that he doesn’t believe their sinning and haven’t gone to confession in 20 years. What happens when the brother approaches the EMHC and the EMHC refuses to give him communion because it would go against her conscious even though the priest has told her to let him receive communion. That’s a tricky situation, who’s right and who’s wrong?
Umm… I thought the Vatican already got involved in this one years ago and made it clear that communion should be withheld. I’m sure Cardinal Arinze even expressed dismay that a cardinal was being asked such questions repeatedly. I think he even suggested that we ask a seven year old child preparing for first communion whether we should give communion to someone who advocated ripping babies apart in their mother’s womb. They know the right answer.
The solution to the situation of these wayward clerics is simple and I’ve stated it before:
Organize a signifigant BOYCOTT of the collection plate!! A few months of empty collection baskets will turn the most ardent sinner (cleric) into a pious fool.
EMHC’s (Extraordinarily Money Hungry Clerics) will get the message that the vast majority of the faithful will refuse to tolerate this situation any longer.
Refuse Holy Cash to the church and make it stick.
Here’s my 2 cents(if it’s even worth that much): If the EMHC, as in Brian’s scenario, *knows* his brother is not eligible to receive Holy Communion, he would be obligated to refuse to administer it to his brother, even if the priest ordered him to do so, as the priest would be ordering him to commit a sacrilege. As the Church teaches, no one can order you to sin. “I was only following orders” doesn’t cut it.
“Organize a signifigant BOYCOTT of the collection plate!! A few months of empty collection baskets will turn the most ardent sinner (cleric) into a pious fool.”
I have a hard time with this. I know I’m not obligated to give money to my local church – I could send it to Archbishop Burke’s diocese or some other trusted charity, but I personally feel that I should give my money to my parish.
If we advocate your method, where do we draw the line? Does each person get to stop giving money because he disagrees with his priest or bishop? Will a third of a diocese stop giving because they feel the bishop puts too much emphasis on canon 916 while another third stop giving because they feel the bishop puts too much emphasis on canon 915? Will the other third stop contributing because they object to the other two thirds being allowed to pull that stunt with their money? Unless I know the money I give to my parish is intentionally being used contrary to the gospel I’m going to give it to them.
Well, American Catholics may demand clarity on point from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts – we Americans like the meaning of our legal texts and the application thereof to cohere tightly – but Rome may or may not share that desire since Roman legal culture admits at many times a fairly looser coherence. And – other than the validity of sacraments, where Roman clarification is usually quick and clear (by Roman standards) – there’s no predictable way to discern where Rome at any given time prefers to show greater clarity and somewhat more coherence.
One thing is sure: be careful not to provoke Rome’s passive aggressive approach to people who make demands on it.
Brian,
Let’s see if I get this straight….
We advocate refusal of holy communion in CONFORMANCE with church law. In fact from a spiritual perspective it is not strictly a refusal but a deferral of communion.
The opposition advocates giving holy communion in CONTRAVENTION of church law – after all ‘where do we draw the line?’ – ‘Unless I know the [holy communion]I give to my parish[oner] is intentionally being used contrary to the gospel I’m going to give it to them.’
Sorry to use your own argument against you Brian, but you sound like McCarrick except we are talking cash instead of communion.
“Pope Clement IV died November 29, 1268 at Viterbo. The Papacy remained vacant for two years, nine months and two days. Prior to this time, the Papal Election was held in a chapel in a palace or other convenient place. However, the Cardinals failed to produce a Pope. THE LAITY OF VITERBO INTERVENED AND FIRST BOARDED UP THE DOORS AND WINDOWS AND PLACED THE CARDINALS ON BREAD AND WATER. When even this could not induce them to elect, they proceeded further. One of them proposed to authorize six cardinals to name the pope, all promising to recognize the one thus named by compromise. It was necessary to have recourse to such an expedient, for the conclave had lasted three years. Ramieri Gatti, captain of the city, HAD THE ROOF UNCOVERED SO THAT THE INCLEMENCY OF WEATHER MIGHT DISPOSE THE CARDINALS TO MAKE A FINAL CHOICE. (De Montor’s Lives of the Roman Pontiffs, volume 4, page 168) September 1, 1271, the second longest interregnum in Church history ended. It was the intervention of the laity to force the Cardinals to complete their solemn task that ended this interregnum.”
One thing is sure: be careful not to provoke Rome’s passive aggressive approach to people who make demands on it.
Well then, would it be appropriate for us to ask for the USCCB to take a few minutes out of its busy schedule of advising the Federal Government on how to end the war in Iraq and solve the immigration crisis to work out a unified policy for handling those who sin publicly and still present themselves for communion. Or would the USCCB’s involvement likely also lead to unhappy results?
The USCCB has already been involved in this issue. Can’t you tell?
Psuedomondo,
McCarrick isn’t my bishop, he’s nearby but not my Bishop. I don’t specifically know of a case at my parish where the priest knows someone chooses to persist in public sin and gives them communion. I obviously assume, by the number of people I see waiting in line for confession, that people ineligble for communion receive it. But I don’t know for sure who’s an unrepentant public sinner and who isn’t and I’m not sure that the priest does either.
The USCCB has already been involved in this issue. Can’t you tell?
Wasn’t it basically to leave it up to the local priests… That’s not a unified policy, that’s a no decision. I realize that in the end situations like this must be a judgment call made by the Eucharistic minister, but the proper way to interpret the cannons really needs to be clarified.
It’s not like the USCCB is the Magisterium, if they mess up they can change their policy. Then again, making a policy doesn’t mean the Bishops will follow it – just look at how well the rubrics for Mass are followed.
Magdelaine,
According to Archbishop Burke, whose recent paper on the subject has thrust this back into the limelight, an EMHC is obligated to refuse Communion to one who “is obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin (915)” (such as a pro-abortion politician). His Excellency make the point that it is not just up to the priest to make this decision but to each person who is distributing Communion as it is their responsibility to protect the Holy Eucharist.
Oh and I sincerely hope Rome clarifies this issue for once and for all. And I agree the clarification should confirm the case stated by Archbishop Burke.
“Wooing them back gently” has always and everywhere been opposed to the perennial teaching of the Church.
The Church has always used the method of condemning and killing error in no uncertain terms.
This method must be employed to destroy error before it claims great ground and destroys many souls.
For to long now though,since 1962, this therapy has been employed only sporadically and we can see the results of the Churches failure to kill error at the moment it rears its serpentine head.
Examples: Blessed Sacrament in the hand.
Extraordinary Ministers of the Blessed Sacrament.
Clown Mass’s, altar girls etc.
Why is the sacrilege of reception of the Blessed Sacrament by public figures outside the pale of the Church, even being discussed?
God bless you.
Brian,
Rudy Giuliani is an unrepentant PUBLIC sinner. A random, rogue brother-in-law of an EMHC is a private sinner. Rudy defies the Holy Catholic Church in insisting that he can hold his own dissident viewpoint, use his power to further the cause of abortion on demand, and still be a Catholic in good standing. If the Church allows him to continue this behavior, then any sin is allowed. The sacrament is mocked. The faithful are given the impression that everything is negotiable. If you can talk fast enough, you can get away with anything. The brother-in-law in question scandalizes his sister-in-law, but he doesn’t compromise the sacrament for anyone else but her and himself.
Used to be that if you were outspoken against your Bishop, you would be excommunicated;
A Non,
It is the duty of Catholics to defend the sacraments. Even a bishop can give scandal. Criticizing someone’s public failures is not a venial sin, let alone one that is worthy of excommunication. You owe “those who support [the] site” (what is this. do you think catholics fall into factions of blogger supporters?) an apology-pronto.
Susan,
I thought a civil marriage is public. It’s making a relationship with a person who is not your spouse before God a matter of public record. I’m not sure what’s more public than that?
How is that any different than a politician who refuses to speak about abortion yet votes for it anyway? His vote, as a matter of public record, is manifest grave sin whether or not he speaks publicly about it.
Discussed by Bishops and priests, is what I meant.
The discussion here is wholesome.
Ut Prosim.
Please, do not confuse reception of the Blessed Sacrament in the hand, its distribution by lay ministers and female altar servers as “error” that needs “killing”. Sheesh.
The wooing approach has actually been used repeated over the centuries by the Church. Just to cite the most remarkably long-lived approach: chattel slavery. Which is condemned by the Church as intrinsically evil and gravely sinful. But which many prelates and highly visible public figures practiced without a hint that they needed to cleanse themselves of it before receiving the Blessed Sacrament.
Which is a descriptive, not prescriptive, observation, I should add.
Germane to any discussion of Canon 915 is this 2000 declaration of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html
Good link Jeff, I guess here’s the crux of it:
The phrase “and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are:
a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability;
b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church.
c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.
Used to be that if you were outspoken against your Bishop, you would be excommunicated; should you and all who support your site be denied communion for such grave sins?
Posted by: A Non | Oct 16, 2007 2:05:11 AM
You should for posting such a riscible comment.
An even trickier question: Take the example of an EMHC’s brother (or someone else they know intimately) who is divorced and civilly remarried and makes statements around friends and family that he doesn’t believe their sinning and haven’t gone to confession in 20 years. What happens when the brother approaches the EMHC and the EMHC refuses to give him communion because it would go against her conscious even though the priest has told her to let him receive communion. That’s a tricky situation, who’s right and who’s wrong?
Posted by: Brian Walden | Oct 16, 2007 6:59:16 AM
I think Saint Paul has said it well already:
1st Corinthians 11:27-28
27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
Unless anyone here thinks s/he is far above St. Paul; St. Paul’s words make it plain and simple.
Organize a signifigant BOYCOTT of the collection plate!! A few months of empty collection baskets will turn the most ardent sinner (cleric) into a pious fool.
When? Where? Should we all boycott all the collections until — well, until what?
Might be appropriate if a fellow parishioner received Communion unworthily, if you informed the priest of your concerns. The problem would be clear, the solution would be clear when it occurred, and the priest does not face an issue where he has no notion what happened and so can not cure it.
Liam,
I will quote Dietrich Von Hildebrand from an letter he wrote to His Holiness Pope Paul VI:
“Unfortunately,in many places Communion is distributed in the hand. To what extent is this supposed to be a renewel and deepening of the reception of Holy Communion? Is the trembling reverence with which we recieve this incomprehensible gift perhaps increased by receiving it in our unconsecrated hands, rather than from the consecrated hands of the priest?
It is not difficult to see the danger of parts of the consecrated Host falling to the ground is incomparably increases, and the danger of desecrating it or indeed the horrible blasphemy is very great? And what in the world is to gained by all this? The claim that contact with the hand makes the Host more real is certainly pure nonsense. For the theme here is not the reality of the matter of the Host, but rather the conciousness, which is only attainable by faith, that the Host in reality has become the Body of Christ.
The reverent reception of the Body of Christ on our toungues, from the consecrated hand of the priest, is much more conducive to the strengthening of this consciousness than reception with our own unconsecrated hands.
Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur, sed auditu solo tuto creditur, says St Thomas Aquinas in his magnificent hymn Adoro Te [Sight, touch, and taste would err about Thee, but through hearing alone are we given certain faith]”
This from a man who the Supreme Pontiff,Pope Pius XII called “the great Doctor of the Church of the twentieth century”.
Ut Prosim.
Esau, I wasn’t so much asking about the person presenting himself for communion but the EMHC caught in a position where a priest tells her to administer the Eucharist to a person when her conscience tells her she’d be giving it to someone who is unworthy.
But I do find verse 28 interesting:
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
I’ve heard (but have no evidence to verify it) that Orthodox pastors somewhat likely to question someone who they don’t recognize. Paul clearly condems those who receive unworthily – I wonder if it would be so bad if we had to do a little more to prove ourselves. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating an inquisition at every Mass. But maybe we could all make small sacrifices like instead of throwing a fit if we went to a new parish and got asked if we’re properly disposed, we could realize that the Eucharistic minister is just doing his job to the proctect the sactity of the sacriment and answer them kindly.
Different but similar topic: if a Sister of Perpetual Indulgence presents himself to an EMHC for communion (as happened in SF), can the EMHC refuse him or anyone that appears to be mocking the sacrament by dress or action? Imagine if the Sunday before Halloween a someone came to Mass dressed as a witch or a devil. Can communion be refused? Would it depend on whether the person is a recognizable member of the parish or a complete stranger?
You tell me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WadbbxPoBlk
And another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khco_N-uEOY
ALL boycotts bring up the same question…
What about the innocent priest and laity who are the victims of a boycott? The has been true for all Boycotts.
The boycott of British goods in December 1921 by Mahatma Gandhi, known as the swadeshi policy. Gandhi also urged people to boycott British educational institutions and law courts, to resign from government employment, and to forsake British titles and honours.
The Boycott by African Americans during the United States civil rights movement, late 1950s and 1960s
The United Farm Workers union’s grape and lettuce boycotts
The Arab League boycott of Israel and companies trading with Israel
The boycott of South Africa by a large part of the world’s countries during its apartheid period
All these boycotts had thier opponents and victims
If we listened to all the opponents that suggested that Africans, Mexicans, Indians would be hurt by a boycott, we would all still have aparthied, the British would still be running half the world and farm workers would still be slaves.
Magdalaine,
I would venture a guess that if we accept Archbishop Burke’s conclusion that it is indeed the job of EMHCs to decide if a person is in violation of canon 915, then it’s also their job to decide the lesser situation of whether or not a person is appropriately dressed.
I wonder what would happen if someone went to the All Saints Vigil Mass (Halloween evening) dressed as their favorite saint. Surely their intent would be in the right place, but would their attire be appropriate for Mass? It’s not a black and white issue.
Are ambiguous issues like this best left to EMHCs to decide on the spot? Do we need to better train EMHCs (and ordinary MCs) to judge these situations prudently and handle them pastorally (the real, deny communion when necessary but make sure to educate the person and do it in the most charitable way possible, type of pastoral)? Do we maybe need to rethink whether or not it might not be better to use less EMHCs and get out of Mass 10 minutes later than to have a whole platoon of them?
What I am personally astonished by is the fact that there are those EMHCs that actually give Holy Communion to folks who are actually chewing gum in their mouths at the time of reception!
Do any of these EMHCs actually believe in the Real Presence or are they just there to look cool for the audience and flaunt their ‘position of power’?
Fine Pseudomondo,
You can boycott. Send your money straight to the Vatican or the Knights of Columbus or FSSP or wherever you trust, but some of us don’t see boycotting as the most effective way of combating the issues in the Church right now.
Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh noooo! I can’t believe those videos… I was thinking of dressed-up parishioners, not of the EMHC herself as a devil! Or the priest as Barney… gack! The case there is already lost. 🙁
As to responding pastorally, I do think that better/more training of EMHCs is called for. And for wayward priests, while we are at it.
Do any of these EMHCs actually believe in the Real Presence or are they just there to look cool for the audience and flaunt their ‘position of power’?
Esau, I often think like you. I don’t know why, but the herd of EMHCs often look smug to me like think they’re special. I don’t know what it is about it; I guess I just expect a more solemn look to go with such a solemn task. But I do my best to assume the best and that they’re just radiating with the Christian joy of fulfilling such an important duty which they were called to by Christ.
First, lest there be any unfair accusations, let me say that I am unequivocally anti-abortion.
We all would love simplistic answers to complex questions. But sometimes complex questions don’t have simple answers, even if they are handed down by Rome. What constitutes a pro-choice politician? What ever their previous vote on abortion was? How often they vote pro-choice? How long its been since they voted pro-choice? The totality of the record on abortion? If they have only voted pro-choice once in their career? All of the above? What’s the criteria, Akin? The variance from politician to politician compounds the difficulty, not to mention the fact that it is not self-evident that Canon 915 would apply to any one or all “pro-choice” politicians. In other words, Akin tragically simplifies the question from the start.
I suppose I question Akin’s understanding of the local bishop. His suggestion that Rome needs to get involved seems to beg for a universal norm on a question that seems to be subject to local episcopal authority. There seems to be legitimate disagreement on the precise interpretation of the text in question in light of politicians, and I think that the more traditional and Catholic approach (i.e. the early Church’s understanding of episcopal authority) is to allow each local bishop to determine what his policy is within the bounds of his jurisdiction. Akin likewise implies that the authority of a single bishop can be subjugated by a Pontifical Council in itself, which is another error in judging the reality of episcopal authority. I offer all of this out of the traditional understanding of the episcopacy as outlined in the Fathers and the Scholastics. I fear that Jimmy has fallen pray to a modern neo-Ultramontanism because he desires neat and tidy answers from Rome to a questions that seems to have room for legitimate disagreement among bishops.
Dan
And the Church did not accept the beloved Dr Hildebrand’s advice on the matter. QED.
“I don’t know why, but the herd of EMHCs often look smug to me like think they’re special.”
Perhaps it’s…projection? Absent objective indicia, it would seem to be unworthy speculation.
Just a thought: I’ve never been to a church with an altar rail, but from what I’ve seen in videos and stuff wouldn’t an altar rail (or atleast the concept of forming a line and having the priest move down it rather than each person wait their turn and approach the priest) be faster and alleviate the need for as many EMHCs. If you cut out half a second per person, that saves over four minutes for every 500 people.
That could make it so that in all but the largest parishes you might only need EMHCs for the cup.
Perhaps it’s…projection? Absent objective indicia, it would seem to be unworthy speculation.
I agree, that’s why I try to assume the best of them. But I know I’m not the only one who gets that initial gut reaction.
Just to clarify my own thoughts on EMHCs: they don’t as such bother me in the least. However,were a pastor to ask me my thoughts on the best practice for the administration of Holy Communion, I would recommend that all be invited to receive the host from the celebrant and partake of the chalice held by the deacon (intinction by the celebrant assisted by the deacon would be even better). In other words, all receive from the same hands, in the same location (except for the handicapped who may need the minister(s) of the Sacrament to come to them, perhaps first). Neither a battery of EMHCs nor a battery of priests.
Most American Catholics would revolt at the extra time this would take. Which is why no one will ask me.
Esau, I often think like you. I don’t know why, but the herd of EMHCs often look smug to me like think they’re special. I don’t know what it is about it; I guess I just expect a more solemn look to go with such a solemn task. But I do my best to assume the best and that they’re just radiating with the Christian joy of fulfilling such an important duty which they were called to by Christ.
Brian,
I believe you may have missed my point.
These were comments in their entirety:
“What I am personally astonished by is the fact that there are those EMHCs that actually give Holy Communion to folks who are actually chewing gum in their mouths at the time of reception!
Do any of these EMHCs actually believe in the Real Presence or are they just there to look cool for the audience and flaunt their ‘position of power’?”
Thus, the latter was just a rhetorical statement concerning the former.
It would be just like saying about a traffic officer who’s just looking at traffic instead of directing it, “Is the traffic officer there only to look pretty?”
To put simply, EMHCs should not be giving out Communion to those folks chewing gum!
What constitutes a pro-choice politician? What ever their previous vote on abortion was? How often they vote pro-choice? How long its been since they voted pro-choice? The totality of the record on abortion? If they have only voted pro-choice once in their career? All of the above? What’s the criteria, Akin?
Policraticus, I think you misrepresent the original argument. It’s not over whether or not the criteria of persevering in grave sin is met, that will always be the judgement of the Eucharistic Minister working in cooperation with his bishop. For example, I don’t believe that Cardinal McCarrick’s argument is that he’s found the politicians in question to not be persevering in grave sin. Instead his argument is that the proper way to deal with it is to let the politicians decide for themselves whether or not they’re worthy to receive communion.
The question Jimmy poses actually takes place after a Eucharistic Minister uses his own judgment to determine that someone is unworthy to receive communion. At that point what is the Eucharistic Minister obliged by canon law to do?
Jimmy
Thank you for requiring something from Rome itself which is rarely done on St. Blogs. Your position on this is right on point.
Liam,
Yes sadly enough and to the detriment of many souls the good and holy Dr Von Hildebrands sound wisdom was ignored. Yes he was a beloved teacher
God bless you
Instead his argument is that the proper way to deal with it is to let the politicians decide for themselves whether or not they’re worthy to receive communion.
This is not Akin’s argument. At all.
My mistake and my apologies, Brian. In my haste I see that I mistook the argument you attributed to McCarrick for an argument you attribute to Akin.
The question Jimmy poses actually takes place after a Eucharistic Minister uses his own judgment to determine that someone is unworthy to receive communion. At that point what is the Eucharistic Minister obliged by canon law to do?
This is not quite Akin’s question, but close. In your phrasing, a bishop can (and many have) decide at what point an EM is obliged by Canon Law to withhold the Eucharist according to that bishop’s interpretation of Canon 915. This is precisely what I advocate. Akin wants to see Rome universalize a static interpretation of Canon 915 that does not take into consideration the contingencies and conditions I enumerated in my initial comment. Indeed, Akin seems to push for an interpretation that the clear text of Canon 915 cannot bear. He accentuates his case by attributing incoherency, question dodging and subversive intentions to the bishops who do not see Canon 915 the way he does. This is disingenuous and terribly unfair to the particular case of each bishop, but forgivable. It seems to me that, given the (intentional?) lack of a precise answer to Akin’s dilemma by the Vatican, the local bishop has every bit of authority to determine his policy for the diocese over which he has jurisdiction. This is better in keeping with the traditional understanding of episcopal authority of the Catholic Church. McCarrick’s solution, which I also favor in addition to local episcopal authority settling the question, is not at all subversive and is quite in keeping with St. Paul’s mandate for examination of conscience on the part of the communicant. It is not manifest that each and every politician who has voted pro-choice at least once in his/her career is persisting in grave sin. I think Akin’s haste to punt to Rome is Ultramontane and simplistic in rationale.
Shouldn’t the quote from Ed Peters read: “We are living through a terrible, perhaps unprecedented, unraveling of dis-respect for Jesus in the Eucharist.”?
Apropos Policraticus’ point, the current Pope seems very eager to limit Rome’s intervention in matters customarily decided by ordinaries.
Fine Brian,
Boycotts can work on a local, regional or national level and the strategy has been used even in the past by Rome itself.
If a priest ignores the rules and is implementing forbidden practices against the express wishes of the parishoners, then a boycott of the collection plate can work. It will at least get his attention. If he complains to the Bishop then the parish can explain it’s position and seek a resolution.
If the Bishop is the problem, then the boycott can work the same way by putting pressure on the local priest to point out to a wayward Bishop that his policy is getting the attention of the local parishes.
In the 20’s the Church basically closed it’s doors in Mexico. No sacraments. If that’s not a boycott I don’t know what is.
I don’t see how this is hard to figure out. If a person is in a state of grave sin, and is obstinately persevering in that state, they should not receive Communion. This needs to be enforced for two reasons: a proper respect for the Body and Blood of our Lord, and out of concern for the immortal soul of the person.
Holy Communion is not a symbol of belonging, it’s the actual reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus, and needs to be treated as such. Denying it to those in manifest grave sin is not optional, it’s required. Those who don’t refuse Communion to people in such a manifest state of sin are contributing to profaning the Body of Christ, and further endangering the soul of the sinner by helping them to unworthily receive Communion. The “good” of wooing them back to the faith cannot be accomplished through such a bad (evil) act.
To put it shortly, give Communion if you’re not sure, deny Communion if you are. But the priests and bishops really DO need to make things clear for extraordinary ministers, because right now they’re uncertain about what to do.
This is not Akin’s argument. At all.
You’re right, I was thinking of the Ed Peters blog article Jimmy linked to. While Jimmy states his personal opinion that canon 915 should apply to pro-choice politicians, his argument is that Rome should help clear up the issue. I think that’s a fair request.
No one is asking Rome to define what constitutes a pro-choice politician – that’s a label not a sin. Jimmy’s request is that Rome help to clear up which actions objectively constitute grave sin. For example, if a politician publicly campaigns that he will not vote to change any abortion laws (both those that restrict and those that expand abortion) is that objectively sinful? I think that’s a moral issue which Rome has every right to decide on.
I’ll admit I don’t know much about how the Vatican works. Maybe its an unrealistic request to ask Rome to offer some more concrete definitions, but I don’t think its an unfair thing to ask for.
Matthew’s comments are correct except for setting aside the issue of whether the person is publicly known as a sinner. For instance, a priest who has private knowledge that someone is an adulterer cannot refuse communion if the adultery is not known. But if he is publicly performing such acts, the priest is performing both sacrilege and scandal, and is guilty of grave sin. Similarly, with respect to abortion, someone who rejects the Church’s teaching publicly is not fit to receive communion, and someone who gives communion is guilty of sacrilege and scandal. This of course is to set aside issues such as surpise, confusion of whether it is really the person, etc.
This is not primarily an issue of canon law, but a very simple and straightforward issue in moral theology. It is in all the old books, such as Prummer, Jone, Nicolaus.
Even though it did not need to, the Vatican did speak out. The bishops are just ignoring it.
With respect to the first comment, Catholics have always held that one can reverently criticize bishops if they are causing grave scandal and damage to the faith.
Shouldn’t the quote from Ed Peters read: “We are living through a terrible, perhaps unprecedented, unraveling of dis-respect for Jesus in the Eucharist.”?
Instead of thinking of disrespect for Jesus as a novel which unravels as we move through the plot, think of respect for Jesus as a sweater which unravels as someone pulls it apart. Ed peters is using the analogy of a sweater rather than a novel.
Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments can be found here: http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm.
It is a very basic issue.
Pseudomondo,
I’m personally not convinced to participate in a boycott, but I don’t deny your evidence that it can be very successful. At my parish too many people don’t contribute, not because they’re boycotting for moral reasons, but because they’re rather spend their money on themselves. For now I’m going to do my part to support my parish.
If an organized movement were started to get a large number of people to inform their pastor or bishop that they will be sending their usual contributions to one specific charity until the issues surrounding pro-abortion politicians are better defined I would consider it.
At my parish too many people don’t contribute, not because they’re boycotting for moral reasons, but because they’re rather spend their money on themselves.
This is why a boycott can not succeed in secret. They have to know why.
This is why a boycott can not succeed in secret. They have to know why.
Mary,
I believe Brian was saying that people there in his parish weren’t contributing — not because of a boycott — but because they would rather spend money on themselves than anything else.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen this too often than not in other parishes.
There are the $1 Catholics or, even worse, $0 Catholics which Brian mentions.
And then there are those Catholic who turn up their noses at the $1 Catholics while contemplating how to avoid their duties to support the parishes. I must say, I have never heard of a time where support of the church was optional. This isn’t anything against Esau, just those who advocate boycotts and other silly things.
Just a thought: I’ve never been to a church with an altar rail, but from what I’ve seen in videos and stuff wouldn’t an altar rail (or atleast the concept of forming a line and having the priest move down it rather than each person wait their turn and approach the priest) be faster and alleviate the need for as many EMHCs. If you cut out half a second per person, that saves over four minutes for every 500 people.
A communion rail is faster, for the reason you give. I used to know a priest at a church with a communion rail and I asked him.
This isn’t anything against Esau, just those who advocate boycotts and other silly things.
Just to clear up the record I don’t think Esau ever advocated not supporting parishes or boycotting. And maybe the people who appear not to contribute financially to the parish have set up direct deposits for their weekly contributions – that’s becoming common. The people who put a buck in the basket might be doing it on top of their regular contribution.
Brian:
Just to clear up the record I don’t think Esau ever advocated not supporting parishes or boycotting.
Thanks for setting the record straight! ;^)
And maybe the people who appear not to contribute financially to the parish have set up direct deposits for their weekly contributions – that’s becoming common. The people who put a buck in the basket might be doing it on top of their regular contribution.
Brian,
That’s a rather charitable thought —
Although, curious — why then did you say: “At my parish too many people don’t contribute, not because they’re boycotting for moral reasons, but because they’re rather spend their money on themselves.”?
M.Z. Forrest has the right thought here:
I must say, I have never heard of a time where support of the church was optional.
Although, curious — why then did you say: “At my parish too many people don’t contribute, not because they’re boycotting for moral reasons, but because they’re rather spend their money on themselves.”?
It’s pretty easy to figure out given the number of parishioners, the standard of living in the town where I live, and the weekly collection results listed in the bulletin. It may have been wrong of me to assume that just because they’re not giving money to the parish they’re spending their money selfishly. But I still think its a reasonable assumption to say that there’s a good portion of people attending mass who don’t feel they have a responsibility to give significantly to charity. Just as its a reasonable assumption that at any given Sunday Mass there’s a good number of people receiving communion unworthily.
The part about the possibility of people contributing through direct deposit was more toward judging anyone individually. Without evidence we shouldn’t assume that the person who doesn’t put anything in the basket is shirking their responsibility to the church just as we shouldn’t assume the person standing next to us is receiving communion in grave sin even though we can be fairly sure that a certain percentage of people at mass fit into one or both of those categories.
It’s pretty easy to figure out given the number of parishioners, the standard of living in the town where I live, and the weekly collection results listed in the bulletin. It may have been wrong of me to assume that just because they’re not giving money to the parish they’re spending their money selfishly. But I still think its a reasonable assumption to say that there’s a good portion of people attending mass who don’t feel they have a responsibility to give significantly to charity.
Actually, while yours may merely be based on what seems like a guess; my assumption is based more so on the fact that the parishes that I mention are those my friends attend.
By having grown up with some of them and their families and close relations, I actually know they hardly contribute to the Church.
It wouldn’t bug me so much if they were poor and needy, as some folks in other parishes are.
However, they’re very affluent and when it comes to themselves, they spare no expense in buying the best high-end items from a nearby Nordy’s and such.
That, in itself, isn’t actually wrong.
However, when a church survives only by the parishoners’ contributions; it would be nice if such folks actually contributed to the parish — especially with what God had bountifully blessed them.
…we shouldn’t assume the person standing next to us is receiving communion in grave sin
Sorry Brian —
But when it comes to politicians, I agree with Jimmy Akin in the withholding of Communion from a politician with a pro-abortion voting record (even if it’s with an “I’m personally opposed, but” dodge).
He is dead on here!
Esau,
I’m in agreement with Jimmy. I wasn’t talking about people who are persevering in manifest grave sin. I was talking about situations like a person who assumes the the people on either side of him in the communion line are sinning for no other reason than because of the stat that 2/3 of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence.
But when it comes to politicians, I agree with Jimmy Akin in the withholding of Communion from a politician with a pro-abortion voting record (even if it’s with an “I’m personally opposed, but” dodge).
Actually, I change my mind. Without qualification I can’t say I’m in complete agreement with this statement. What about a situation such as a politician who voted pro-abortion 5 years ago and was never instructed to refrain from receiving communion. There’s been no news for or against his position on abortion since then. I can’t advocate witholding communion from him now; he may still be in grave sin but I don’t think we can call it manifest. I think this is the point Policraticus was making.
Now if next week he votes for a bill which expands abortion or starts running a pro-abortion campaign or gives an interview about his pro-abortion beliefs, etc. – then I think his priest and or bishop should meet with him and deny him communion if he persists in his stance.
This raises the question: If a person’s state of grave sin is manifested nationally, does the priest or bishop who notifies him that he is not eligible to receive communion have the duty of making it known nationally. Does this violate the rules of confession or does the public nature of the sin make it allowable or even necessary to avoid scandal?
Brian,
I believe it’s 2/3 say they don’t believe in Transubstantiation, many because they don’t know what the word means.
Everyone,
What about politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion in some limited circumstances?
Everyone,
What about politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion in some limited circumstances?
J.R. Stoodley,
Very good question there!
Brian, I would hope that one thing required of a repentant politician who formerly publicly supported abortion would be to publicly announce his changed position. This is not to embarrass the person, but to clarify for the rest of us Catholics that the former position had been abandoned. It’s not a public apology, but a public correction of a public error, and makes it clear that that issue is not a cause to deny Holy Communion. It needs to be done to remove the appearance of scandal.
If the pro-abortion support was 5 years ago, you probably could make a really good case that it’s not “manifest”, especially since 5 years is plenty of time for the person in question to have received absolution. It’s tough, though, with all the media coverage and archive footage that surfaces, to handle something like this, which is why I hold the position stated in my preceding paragraph (public correction).
If the nationally-manifested sin was not disclosed to the priest or bishop under the confidentiality of confession (i.e., if the priest or bishop read the newspaper and discerned the manifest grave sin), then there’s no rules violation. I think it would better be handled quietly (messages to the priests, who tell any extraordinary ministers) instead of announced on the news.
I believe it’s 2/3 say they don’t believe in Transubstantiation, many because they don’t know what the word means.
Interesting point. Anyway that was just the first thing that popped into my head. Use the statistic that 90%+ of Catholics use contraception instead of you’d like.
What about politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion in some limited circumstances?
I think it’s not about what you claim publicly so much as what you do publicly. You can call yourself pro-life or say that your actions aren’t sinful all you want but if you vote for legislation that, for example, that allows abortion if the unborn child is diagnosed with down syndrome that’s public sin.
What about politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion in some limited circumstances?
If they openly say that handicapped babies or what have you should be killed freely, they aren’t pro-life.
If they work on a law that excepts some conditions because otherwise it won’t pass, they are trying to limit abortion — morally licit.
What about a politician who never speaks publicly about abortion and votes against measures to restrict abortion but abstains from voting on measures to expand it? He’s technically not advancing abortion, but he’s voting against efforts to restrict it. Is there a clearcut answer as to whether or not this constitutes formal participation in grave sin?
If they work on a law that excepts some conditions because otherwise it won’t pass, they are trying to limit abortion — morally licit.
Good point Mary. I guess such a law wouldn’t permit certain types of sin so much as it would restrict certain previously allowed types of sin. I know there’s a joke about smoking while praying or praying while smoking in there somewhere.
The people who put a buck in the basket might be doing it on top of their regular contribution.
This is true. I used to do this as a spiritual exercise: tithing out of my spending money, which meant dropping a couple of dollars into the basket each week. This was entirely separate from our actual donation to the parish.
I also couldn’t tell you what the giving levels of any of our friends are.
Just to agree with the observation that you can’t tell too much about how much any given individual gives to charity unless they actually tell you.
“What about a politician who never speaks publicly about abortion and votes against measures to restrict abortion but abstains from voting on measures to expand it? He’s technically not advancing abortion, but he’s voting against efforts to restrict it. Is there a clearcut answer as to whether or not this constitutes formal participation in grave sin?”
Let’s just change the subject and see what happens:
“What about a politician who never speaks publicly about lynching blacks and votes against measures to restrict lynching blacks but abstains from voting on measures to expand lynching blacks? He’s technically not advancing the lynching of blacks, but he’s voting against efforts to restrict the lynching of blacks. Is there a clearcut answer as to whether or not this constitutes formal participation in grave sin?”
Here’s my answer: “whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me…[W]hat you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.” (Matt. 25:40,46- NAB)
I wonder how much of this “bending over backwards” for pro-abort politicians has to do with state and federal funds going to bishops’ pet projects.
“Oh no – if we speak out against him, maybe Teddy will cut funding for adoption centers…”
“If I speak up against her, Nancy might decide to revoke our tax-exempt status…”
Yes, bishops and priests are called to a celibate life to be consecrated men, but, by God, be MEN! Stand up for what’s right!
Thank you Dr. Beckwith,
I think we’re all convicted by Jesus’ words but that doesn’t necessarily mean we’re in violation of canon 915.
Your example does make things more clear, though. Laws are moral decisions. Voting against a law that restricts abortion, even without ever voting for a law that allows abortion or speaking in support of abortion, is not a neutral action. At the very least it’s the equivalent of making a public statement that the current laws allowing abortion are just and moral.
Boycotting I think would be problematic because you stand to gain financially from the sinfulness of the clergy.
I think a better alternative would be to vote with your feet if you can. Find a parish with more faithful leadership and reward them with your presence.
Just like the “welcoming” pro-homosexual parish in the now infamous Archbishop Niederauer SPI communion video, the wayward parish will be devoid of families and children with no future.
Abortion is a cold clinical term that diminishes the utter heinousness of an act of murder. Given the rampant permissive amorality in our society and the duress that some pregnant women may feel, the onus of the crime lies mainly on those who finance abortion, perform abortion, and support abortion through legislation that allows this slaughter to continue unabated. A Catholic politician who tries to weasel his or her way out of their support for abortion by using the cheap excuse of being “personally opposed” but answerable to their constituency, and the bishop that allows this politician to receive Our Lord are both culpable contributors to a crime that cries to heaven for justice.
Let us be grateful that Archbishop Burke and some others have been prophetic voices against these crimes against the unborn, their mothers (and fathers) and our own sick society.
Excommunicate Richard Daley and the pro-abort politicans. and those who support Gay marriage
Excommunicate Richard Daley and the pro-abort politicans. and those who support Gay marriage
Jack wrote: “Your faith comes before your career. If your job is a sin you have to quit. Too many use the excuse that its their job, have to feed the family, or try to find every definition of remote that they can. In this day and age some jobs should not be held by a Catholic.”
I basically agree. But does every imperfection warrant harsh punishment.
To reparaphrase a la Beckwith:
Let’s just change the subject and see what happens:
“What about a politician who never speaks publicly about profaning the name of our Lord and votes against measures to restrict profaning the name of our Lord but abstains from voting on measures to expand profaning the name of our Lord? He’s technically not advancing the profaning the name of our Lord, but he’s voting against efforts to restrict the profaning the name of our Lord. Is there a clearcut answer as to whether or not this constitutes formal participation in grave sin?”
The res ipsa argument has two edges.
-Turretinfan
Regarding the Real Presence and worthiness to receive communion, what is required first is a primer from all the pulpits in the land. Until that happens, ignorance and confusion will reign, as well as such mockery as the giving of communion to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
Poor Jesus!
He looks for our love when He comes to us in Holy Communion. Let’s make reparation to Him when we receive Him next time and love Him a little more for those who don’t.
LJ,
It’s pretty hard to give a primer on the infinite value of the Blessed Sacrament from the pulpit, after having removed the Tabernacle from the center of the Sanctuary to a place..like 8 ft. from the side exit door of the Church.(Even as they did at my parish Church)
Actions speak louder than words, and when the Tabernacles are moved it is advocating that the ‘Community’ has more value than Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. And once this great dishonor to the Lord is tolerated, or even promoted, then, pretty much nothing matters anymore. ie.. People are more important than the Eucharistic Lord.
In His state of dishonor, it really doesn’t matter much who recieves Him. And its always better NOT to create waves!
If Hillary and Rudy emerge as the party nominees, what is the morality of voting for Rudy (a strict constructionist) versus Hillary (views abortion as nearly a sacrament) as the lesser of two evils? Anyone thought this through from a Catholic perspective?
If Hillary and Rudy emerge as the party nominees, what is the morality of voting for Rudy (a strict constructionist) versus Hillary (views abortion as nearly a sacrament) as the lesser of two evils? Anyone thought this through from a Catholic perspective?
One could argue that they are voting to limit the harm in such a case. But I agree with Dobson that this is an imprudent move. Republicans winning without a genuine commitment to the sanctity of life, marriage, etc. is a real blow to those causes, whereas a Hillary victory would energize them and hopefully force Republicans to stop acting like pseudo-Democrats.
A lot of this has been covered before by moral theologians.
A priest or teacher who publicly denies an part of the faith (even five years ago) is in a state of mortal sin at least until he decides to publicly retract. This retraction would be required, for instance, if a theologian or priest were to oppose the Church’s teaching on contraception or abortion. An ordinary person need only change his opinion. Consequently, an ordinary layman might change his position, go to confession, and then receive communion.
There are two issues here: 1) Is there a public sin without repentance? 2) Has someone with teaching authority denied an article of the faith or a grave matter in morals?
There are all sorts of less clear matters for prudence, e.g. a politician might say that he is for outlawing abortion, but can do nothing about it; a politician might (but I think not) be considered to have a teaching role; a politician may have gone to confession and yet this fact may not known. In this last case, the public nature of the act would require some sort of restitution and notification of the authorities. It would be the same for a someone who is known to be in an invalid marriage or otherwise living in sin.
Except that Rudy is no strict constructionist when it comes to executive power or, it seems, torture, so there goes that “lesser” of two evils idea. Rudy seems to be the worst candidate from a Catholic perspective.
Liam,
I think you’re torturing logic to assert that Hillary is the lesser of two evils from a Catholic perspective. I mean seriously, she would create a veritable police state to advance the agenda of Planned Parenthood, GLADD and the Hollywood and Ivy elites. It would be the Culture of Death writ large.
Rudy is merely a disgrace as a “Catholic” in public life. And it would be easy for the Bishops to point out his hypocracies. He would probably advance the gay adenda (lamentable) but he would appoint judges who would tend to restrict rather than expand imaginary rights like publicly funded abortion.
Rudy’s ostensible improvement in terms of abortion over Hillary is entirely putative, but he is clearly worse than Hillary on a number of Catholic issues – he is even more of a thoroughgoing utilitarian than Hillary. He’s worse from a Catholic perspective.
OK, you have my attention. On what issues of interest to Catholics is Hillary “better” than Rudy?
If it comes down to Rudy v. Hillary, we’ve got to suffer the 4 years of Hillary to teach the Repub party a lesson – they cannot make speeches and do nothing and still expect our vote.
Tough love is in order – the nice thing is that Hillary is likely to waffle back to supporting the War in Iraq (her husband knows something – otherwise, she wouldn’t have been so adamantly for the war for so long while the rest of her party shifted away), so it won’t be nearly as bad as if Obama or Edwards were to win.
Jamie,
If Hillary gets to appoint two or more judges (a near certainty), our children will suffer from that for generations. Wait until she and Nancy Pelosi combine forces to dictate curricula in public schools, or mandate “fairness” on the airwaves, etc. They will give political correctness the force of law (witness Canada where a Bishop can be censored by the government for preaching against homosexual behavior). Once those doors are opened there will be no going back…
Torture (Rudy’s in favor of anything it takes), preemptive war, and possibly even marriage (Hillary has long been viewed with more suspicion by gay marriage activists than Rudy – both candidates appear to be tacking for their primary base, but their hearts appear to be in another place). I think Rudy’s position on abortion and ESCR is not substantively different than Hillary’s – other than appearing to tack for the primary base. I don’t feel any obligation to pretend those tacking movements are anything other than opportunistic and temporary.
Which is not to say I am voting for Hillary. I am just saying that the argument that Rudy is a lesser evil is an exercise in self-delusion.
Liam,
MotherJones (not a conservative publication) has quoted Rudy’s stated position as: “intense interrogation of suspects, though not torture.”
Do you have reason to believe Rudy is actually in favor of torture? Do you view an aggressive prosecution of the war on terror as a greater evil than abortion? Keep in mind, the NRL estimates over 40 Million Abortions in the U.S. since 1973.
Here’s an interesting comment on the spectre of Hillary Clinton in the White House from Paul Kengor, author of God and Hillary Clinton:
“If you’re a pro-lifer, and if no issue is more important to you than the right of an unborn child to have life, then nothing could be more calamitous than a President Hillary Clinton. I don’t know of any politician who is more uncompromising and extreme on abortion rights than Hillary Clinton. I know this well and don’t state it with anger or hyperbole. Her extremism on abortion rights was the single most shocking, inexplicable find in my research on her faith and politics. I couldn’t understand it. No question. It is truly extraordinary. Nothing, no political issue, impassions her like abortion rights. For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.”
“By the way, speaking of Catholics, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II saw this abortion extremism in Hillary, and both confronted her on it repeatedly, especially Mother Teresa, right up until the day she died. I have a chapter on this in the book. It’s a gripping story.”
http://wthrockmorton.com/2007/10/09/hillary-clinton-vs-rudy-guiliani-a-pro-life-dilemma/
If Hillary and Rudy emerge as the party nominees, what is the morality of voting for Rudy (a strict constructionist) versus Hillary (views abortion as nearly a sacrament) as the lesser of two evils? Anyone thought this through from a Catholic perspective?
The Vatican has specifically addressed this issue — both on the politicians and on the voters. The view on politicians I cited above: legislators can endeavor to limit what they can not prohibit.
Similarly, it is morally wrong to vote for a candidate BECAUSE of his wrong views. When it is a case of the lesser of two evils, you may licitly vote for the lesser because he is the lesser.
Not voting would also be a possibility, but not in silence; otherwise politicians would interpret it as indifference.
Thank You Mary. Once again, the Magisterium is a beacon of clear and concise reason. I recently heard a convert say that even when he was a Protestant Pastor, he reflexively went to the Catholic Church when he wanted to know the true Christian position on a moral issue…
In the Rudy vs Hillary scenario…
The next president will appoint a MINIMUM of 2 Supreme Court Justices…very possibly 3. John Paul Stevens and Ruth Ginsburg will both retire in the next term. Both are extraordinarily pro-choice. This next president is EXTREMELY important for the pro-life issues. SO, if it’s Rudy vs Hillary with no viable third candidate, I will hold my nose and vote for Rudy.
The way I see it, Hillary has a 0% chance of nominating a pro-life justice, and with Rudy it might be 10-20% maybe higher. If Rudy were able to put one or two pro-life SC justices on the court, it would dramatically stregthen the pro-life movement for 20+ years. If Hillary gets to nominate those Justices, we will be set back 20+ years or worse.
Mark
One also has to discount the SCOTUS issue by realizing that the most it would do is return some aspect of the abortion issue to the state legislatures, and that perhaps a small amount of small population states might impose a few restrictions years from now, by which time the SCOTUS will be changed again and might change its mind. Two more anti-Roe votes does not equal anything like an end to abortion. So that’s a heavy discount on that terrible stat you quoted. However, a president is directly responsible for the prosecution of war; and Rudy’s definition of torture appears to be narrower than the Coalition for Fog’s.
Remember South Dakota, folks.
Liam,
I believe it is estimated that 18 states would ban abortion completely within a year of an overturn. Several states already have passed trigger laws that become effective the moment Roe v Wade is overturned. So, it would save babies right off the bat.
But, the biggest benefit would be the movement of the battleground to the states. For instance, I live in Illinois, we have dozens (literally) of pro-life (A+ rating) democrats in the state legislature. Now these guys NEVER have to vote on abortion and ALWAYS get elected by their very conservative districts. All of the sudden these politicians would be on the hotseat! They would be held accountable and not able to toe the national democratic party line on abortion. State reps are a lot more vulnerable on issues like abortion than US congressmen.
Turretinfan attempts to hoist me on my petard by turning my reductio against me. He offers this illustration:
“What about a politician who never speaks publicly about profaning the name of our Lord and votes against measures to restrict profaning the name of our Lord but abstains from voting on measures to expand profaning the name of our Lord? He’s technically not advancing the profaning the name of our Lord, but he’s voting against efforts to restrict the profaning the name of our Lord. Is there a clearcut answer as to whether or not this constitutes formal participation in grave sin?”
The analogy doesn’t work because (1) there is no third person that is the direct target of the harm, i.e., the unborn, (2) the wrongness of abortion is a wrong against both God and man, and (3) profaning the Lord is just a wrong against God, but God, who is perfect, cannot be diminished by this harm. This is why the lynching analogy works better.
Try again.
Different
Those estimates are highly inflated; consider South Dakota, which was considered a shoo-in. I think the prospects of significant action in more than a mere handful of small states are very unlikely. My larger point is that there are many contingencies involved in the president’s involvement in the arena of abortion, much less in areas of prosecution of war and torture and the like. And defining torture is not a merely prudential judgment left to the political sphere. It’s as intrinsically evil as abortion. And the president is much more directly responsible for permitting/forbidding it.
Jimmy, I agree with you to the extent that the Holy See needs to get involved. I disagree only on which dicastery should be involved. An authentic interpretation from the PCILT really isn’t going to do much. The best the PCILT will be able to do is say “yes, ‘grave sin’ in the law is the same criterion as ‘grave sin’ for determining mortal sin.” The debate will then shift to whether Catholic politicians who advocate for “abortion rights” are sinning gravely or not, and that’s an issue for theologians, not lawyers.
Theology is not my area of expertise, so maybe I’m simply not in the know that authentic teaching on this particular area exists, i.e. legislators who promote/enact legislation allowing abortion commit grave sins. (I mean, I think so, but I don’t authentically teach the Catholic faith.) IMHO, the CDF should be the ones involved, not the PCILT.
Mr. Beckwith (if that is really you)
You only have to visit Turretinfan’s website to know what he’s really about.
By the way, if that really is you, I saw you on The Journey Home and enjoyed to program. Welcome Home!
🙂
Liam,
And defining torture is not a merely prudential judgment left to the political sphere. It’s as intrinsically evil as abortion
Wrong. The Church has clearly indicated that abortion and euthanasia are the gravest sort of evils because they attack the most innocent.
Defining torture is the issue. It seems to me the general description of what constitutes torture is similar in the administration’s policy to the Church’s. The problem is specifics. The Church clearly does not oppose incarceration, even though it is mentally stressful, hard labor was permitted even though it was painful, even corporal punishment is not banned by the Church. I see nothing in the magisterium that condemns applying similar levels of discomfort to secure information which may save lives, when there is a certainty that the person subject is complicit with the killings.
It seems that lacking further magisterial guidance what constitutes torture, with respect to the Church’s general definition is a matter for the civil realm, informed by the Christian conscience.
With regard to abortion, the definition is entirely clear, and the Church has carefully addressed all the potential loopholes, precisely because She sees it as the gravest of evils.
God Bless,
Matt
Let’s not minimize the affect of a pro-abortion president of the US. Aside from appointing judges to the federal and supreme courts, the president can veto virtually every spending bill that a pro-abortion congress should put forward. There is also the issue of the Mexico City policy, funding for UNFPA, voting policies in the UN, and the list goes on.
Having said that, I don’t think that the suggestion is necessarily wrong that a pro-abortion Republican president will be more damaging to the cause than a pro-abortion Democrat. By granting the social-liberal Republican’s the presidency they will see they do not need us, and will continue on their march to the party of death. Now, that position does NOT justify voting for the person who is quite obviously the greater of two evils, but it is an argument for a 3rd party candidate.
What to do? It’s abundantly obvious that every Catholic must vote in the primary for a truly pro-life candidate, regardless of party. One also should consider where that candidate’s delegates will go if they are defeated.
God Bless,
Matt
With the archbishop of St. Louis not getting a red cap, yet again, I wouldn’t hold my breath. 🙁
Matt
I think you misconstrue what the Church teaches.
Liam,
You continue to suggest that Mayor Giulini is in favor of torture. I think it is time to back up that claim.
Also, your blanket statements like “I think you misconstrue what the Church teaches” are a bit tiresome. Please back it up with some facts.
Are you wearing a tiara?
I believe it is estimated that 18 states would ban abortion completely within a year of an overturn. Several states already have passed trigger laws that become effective the moment Roe v Wade is overturned. So, it would save babies right off the bat.
Honestly – maybe I’m being cynical – even with “conservative” or “strict constructionist” justices on the Supreme Court, what are the odds that Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton would be overturned?
We pro-lifers have elected Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. since 1973 – 34 years ago – and what do we really have to show for it from the judiciary or the executive branch (how many times have funds to Planned Parenthood been vetoed? none)? Most of the real work in the abortion war has been done through the legislature, especially state legislatures.
I think that we really need to focus on the congressional races – the presidential race is, essentially, moot. (Especially since Congress has to give the final “thumbs-up/thumbs-down” on any candidate.)
That’s why I would advocate putting forward a 3rd party candidate – find somebody NOW (Alan Keyes, anyone?) and give them all the support possible. If we wait until Iowa, New Hampshire, and Super Tuesday, we’ve waited too long! Start drafting someone now, so that by the time Giuliani is the anointed Anti-Hillary, we’ve got somebody in place.
Ross Perot nearly did it, and all he had was money. Imagine what we could do, with God on our side. Otherwise (to use the “abortion as genocide” argument) are we honestly expected to choose the lesser of the 2 evils of Hitler vs. Himmler?
Liam,
Sorry about the flip comment about the Papal Tiara. I’m just waiting for you to give me something substantive to back up your assertions that Rudy is in favor of torture and is, in fact, a greater threat to Catholic values than Hillary.
I concede he is a scandal as a Catholic politician and it would be a travesty to have a Catholic President who cannot receive communion. However, at least the lines would be drawn clearly.
Hillary is a militant, in-your-face, ends-justifies-the-means, abortion activist pretending to be an Evangelical!
All sane people should agree that ANY current republican candidate would be a better alternative to Hillary. The damage that she would do to the life issue is catastrophic.
Hey, I’d love a 3rd party choice also, but if 6 weeks before the election the 3rd party guy is at 6% in the polls, he sure isn’t getting my vote. Vote for Fred Thompson. Although, I have no idea why lifesite insists on trying to tear up the most pro-life candidate with a chance of winning.
Remember we have a third party candidate, Ross Perot, to thank for Bill Clinton’s first term ….
Hillary will be elected because of the anger over the war. It is an emotional issue, and not logical. Four years are not nearly enough to repair the damage caused by the eight year Bush presidency. It’s going to be a single issue, and the issue will be the war. Bush went against the pope’s advice in choosing to begin an unjust war; that has further complicated efforts to address other ills, such as aborition. Those of you who want to refuse communion to people who hold pro-choice opinions, are you equally intent on refusing communion to those who support an elective, unjust war, that has wrought untold devistation upon innocent women and children?
Ack! Ann, I have come full circle on the decision to go to war and now believe it was unjust and a bad idea. I accept responsibility for being an “enabler” to the Bush administration in that regard, which applies to most other Americans, as well.
That doesn’t change the FACT that entering into any particular war is a matter of prudential judgment. Faithful Catholics could – in good faith – hold opposing views on whether a war is just or not.
ABORTION – and support for abortion – can *never* be justified and is always sinful and so the two can’t be reasonably compared.
Hindsight is 20/20. No one knew going into this that the intelligence on WMDs was highly flawed or bogus. Even the super-virtuous Clintons said that according to the intelligence they saw when they were in the WH that Saddam had ’em…
Mark
I am pressed for time today and the next few days with too many appointments to respond at length. But I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge I saw your comments.
I am independent: I carry no water for Hillary et al. Or for the GOP. I am Catholic before being American, as it were. I cannot square voting for Rudy in any way with a good consience and have been alarmed that there are Catholics who for the sake of defeating Hillary are arguing themselves into that position. It boggles the mind and soul. That’s my sole point here. The best vote would be for neither.
I think you (and others) are reading Rome’s teaching and statements about torture (and the concept of preemptive war) in a minimalist way that would be given very short shrift by Rome. I am deadly serious about that. There is deep moral peril here. The devil sends evils in pairs that we may run from one to flee from the other. Be mindful of that before publicly espousing Rudy as better than Hillary.
Liam,
The issue of torture is, I think, of VASTLY less importance than abortion. Torture is intrinsically evil but it is not perpetrated on the huge scale like abortion.
The best vote of course would be for a pro-life, anti-torture candidate who has a chance of winning. My next preference would be for a pro-life, pro-torture candidate who has a chance of winning (like Fred Thompson).
I think there will be a lot of Catholics voting for Hillary, because they opposed the war at the outset and don’t think the Republicans deserve another four years. Since Bush lied to get us into the war, the anti-choice lip service that Republicans pay to their prospective voters is less believable than ever. Even anti-choice Catholics might shy away from voting for a supposedly anti-choice candidate thinking that if Republicans can lie so easily about something in the external forum, such a war that has killed and maimed thousands of the innocent, and squandered the lives of 3.3K of the best and bravest of our nation, they can lie more easily about something that is (in a sense) an internal forum, private matter between a woman and a doctor. Granted, as a human rights issue, abortion is not a private matter, but in terms of how abortion is percieved, it is not in the public formum. People who lie easily about that which can be seen are certainly going to lie easily about things which can’t be proven or otherwise demonstrated, such as their theoretcial opinions about abortion.
Abortion is, frankly, torture followed by murder …
“Since Bush lied to get us into the war”
Hoo, boy… care to give any evidence of that?
It seems to me that if Bush lied it was first to himself.
That abortion is always and everywhere immoral is not an “theory”, it is a statement of fact.
Anti-choice? Murdered pre-born babies have no choices.
I am seriously looking at not voting this election, but it is unbelievable to me that anyone could muster an air of sanctimony in asserting Hillary’s moral superiority.
At least I’m not using the war as an excuse to pull the lever for my favorite dead-baby candidate.
There is some documentation on http://www.bushlies.net, as a starting point. Yeah I can see that he lied to himself, too.
Hey, just heard an interview on “Catholic” radio with a guy from the evangelical religious right. Sounds like the fundamentalist “Christians” are having a hard time agreeing on a candidate, and some of the are talking third party.
It’s Hillary’s to loose!
Ann,
If your primary motivation in the election is the war, as you seem to imply, then you must remember that Hillary voted FOR IT! Hillary is not the anti-war candidate you suggest. She was privy to the same intelligence reports as Bush, and yet she voted in favor of the war on several occasions. So, if he was deluding himself then she must have been also.
You’re deluding yourself if you think a Catholic in good conscience could vote for Hillary!
“It’s Hillary’s to loose!”
Oh, I agree.
We’ve lived through horrible presidents before. Hey, I lived through four years of Jimmy Carter, I can take Lady Macbeth.
TimJ,
Can you take 8 years of her?
“…squandered the lives of 3.3K of the best and bravest of our nation…”
As a veteran, I am disgusted by people like the one who wrote that.
Bill912,
thank you for your service.
God Bless,
Matt
Funny, the “squandered the lives” post is also littered with “anti-choice.”
Can you take 8 years of her?
If the race becomes between Hillary vs. Guiliani; would it be a sin to elect Guiliani?
…they can lie more easily about something that is (in a sense) an internal forum, private matter between a woman and a doctor.
Just as people can lie about plain murder and disguise this by, let’s say, utilizing a more euphemistic term just to make such a heinous act appear acceptable, ‘okay’ and ‘hip’ — a term such as ‘PRO-CHOICE’!
Esau,
You don’t have to vote for either/or there are other parties besides our main 2.
“If the race becomes between Hillary vs. Guiliani; would it be a sin to elect Guiliani?”
I don’t KNOW that it would be a sin to vote for either, depending on a whole lot of factors. I can’t say with certainty whether any individual who pulls the level for the Iron Pantsuit would be in sin, depending on their motivations, how well they understood the issues, etc… I have enough to think about with my own sins.
It would, however, be a damned shame to elect either of them.
Tim J.,
it would most certainly be a sin to vote for a radical pro-abortionist like Hillary.
God Bless,
Matt
Yes, Bill912, “squandered.” Quite different than the term you may have inferred, “wasted,” which I would NEVER say. These are true American Heroes who poured out their last measure of devotion, and their sacrifice is to be honored. However, the term “squander” refers to the foolishness of the civilian leaders (who themselves avoided any kind of military service) who calously expended our heros lives in foolish ways.
matt –
This is where we need to be very careful in our choice of terms. I was talking about sin. In as much as an individual votes for Hillary because of her pro-abortion views, or with callous disregard for the lives of the innocent babies she wants to make it easier to slaughter, they would – probably – be sinning.
If they are voting for her in ignorance, though… if they truly just don’t get the moral implications of their act, if they have been deceived by media hacks and doubletalk, then – from a theological perspective – we simply can’t say what kind of culpability such an individual would bear.
Depressingly stupid? Without a doubt. Evil in many cases? Certainly. But Catholic theology recognizes that those who act in ignorance are less culpable than those who have all the facts and act selfishly anyway.
Tim J, I would rather vote for someone who is honest, and whose social policies would result in fewer abortions, than a LIAR who pays lip service to anti-choice while advocating social and economic policies that will assure that the number of abortions increase. As far as personal sin is concerned, worry about yourself. The state of my soul is not a matter of your personal judgment. I’m going to have to hold my nose no matter who I vote for. I think all of us, including the unborn, will have a better chance with Hillary. It can’t be demonstrated that the abortion rate increased with Bill; and there’s no reason to think that it will with Hillary. If anti-choice rhetoric correlated with a decrease abortion rate you might have a point. Absent that, the argument is moot.
Ann,
you should be honest yourself and refer to the choice in truthful terms – the choice to murder a child.
Tim,
I doubt there is many people so completely ignorant of Hillary’s radical pro-baby killing agenda, but if there is that would serve to lessen the culpability of the sin, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a sin.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt, I think I hear what you are saying, but are you prepared to call war “child killing” also?
“Tim J, I would rather vote for someone who is honest…”
Yeah… let me know if you find someone like that. If you are referring to Hillary, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
“…and whose social policies would result in fewer abortions, than a LIAR who pays lip service to anti-choice while advocating social and economic policies that will assure that the number of abortions increase…”
Such as? The poor are always worse off under liberal policies, as they tend to wreck the economy and destroy families.
“As far as personal sin is concerned, worry about yourself…”
I think I covered that.
“The state of my soul is not a matter of your personal judgment.”
Correct. I’m glad to see you have been paying attention. The Just Judge is watching, though.
“I’m going to have to hold my nose no matter who I vote for.”
I’ve done that often enough. I just don’t think they make a clothespin strong enough for me to vote for a pro-abort like Giuliani. For Hillary, I would need an airsick bag just to read her name on the ballot.
“I think all of us, including the unborn, will have a better chance with Hillary.”
Well, you’re wrong, but don’t let that stop you. Hillary wants to make abortion a basic human right, like due process or free speech, and back it up with a U.N. mandate. She wants to remove all the tedious red tape that stands in the way of the murder of inconvenient people. I don’t doubt she will do the same for the elderly, if she can.
“It can’t be demonstrated that the abortion rate increased with Bill; and there’s no reason to think that it will with Hillary.”
Who knows? I only know what she has said she wants to do. Whether she will be very effective is anyone’s guess.
“If anti-choice rhetoric correlated with a decrease abortion rate you might have a point. Absent that, the argument is moot.”
Well, we certainly have a different mix on the Supreme Court now than we did. But your point is well made. Many Republican politicos have been hypocritically cynical on the issue, treating the pro-life vote like some kind of red-haired stepchild. That is why I intend to stay home if the GOP taps a pro-abort as their nominee.
That would leave you free to vote for Hillary without my vote canceling out yours. Just remember, you vote for her, you deserve what you get. Then it would be MY turn to brandish the “Not MY President!” bumper sticker.
If it has been said once it needs to be said a thousand times. No one has been “squandered” in the successful military endeavor that is Iraq.
Sure. Strategy has been less than ideal at times. That’s what you get when you deal with humans.
But here is the biggie: if anyone’s lives have been “squandered” they have done so willingly what with the total lack of a draft and all. So the term reflects directly on those “good and brave” people whether you want it to or not.
You cannot have it both ways.
I mean technically, you can. Because it is a free country because of the sacrifice of the brave.
For the stuck-up classes of the loud.
TimJ,
You can always write in a candidate.
How about me. I’m pro-life, anti-war, pro-family, and anti-corporation. I’m the perfect candidate.
Dr. Eric for Emperor!
Eric, tell me more, I might vote for you myself. There are not many truly pro-life candidates out there. I’m not sure what you mean by pro-family, though. Are my friends, John and Ron, who are a couple, part of your scheme?
Amen, StubbleSpark!
Ann,
Matt, I think I hear what you are saying, but are you prepared to call war “child killing” also?
Every act that intentionally causes the death of a child is always murder. When a child dies as an unintended result of a military action it is deeply tragic, but not always murder.
The carnage of abortion in the US is 10 times the deaths due to war in Iraq, and probably 100 times the deaths due to US action.
There is no moral equivalency between the war in Iraq and abortion, none.
God Bless,
Matt
Clarification, pace the opinion of a couple of people late in this thread, it’s been pretty well determined that, in order to sin in casting a ballot for a pro-abort, you have to be casting it in agreement with that position rather than consciously in spite of it. One or two bishops went a bit over the top along the posters here in 2004, and in the wake of that there was a backing down on the imputation of sin et cet. Rome has strenuously avoided imputing sin to the action of what may be called “voting for in spite of…” (as opposed to “voting for because of…” Catholics are not free to go assigning sin to others more freely than Rome does – it oversteps our job description.
“…you have to be casting it in agreement with that position rather than consciously in spite of it.”
Evidence?
“…you have to be casting it in agreement with that position rather than consciously in spite of it.”
Well, not necessarily. It might be that you just don’t care. For instance, you think that a certain candidate’s policies will benefit you personally, so you vote for them IN SPITE of the fact that they want to make it easier to kill unborn babies. I would think that might be sinful, even if you aren’t voting for the candidate BECAUSE of their pro-death positions.
“I’m not sure what you mean by pro-family, though. Are my friends, John and Ron, who are a couple, part of your scheme?”
Ann, I am pro-family, which is why I oppose gay “marriage”, or anything like it. But that is a bit off-topic… though I suppose we could discuss why Catholic politicians who support gay marriage should ALSO be denied communion.
I’m pro-family and pro-life. I have 4 children 6 and under; all 18 months apart.
And, this is no scheme.
Ann,
So far you’ve indicated you are pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. Are you really a Catholic or are you just lobbing bombs into a Catholic discussion about a faith grounded vote?
I already know what secular progresives think about the election, I’m more interested in a Christain perspective on this issue …
“It’s time for the Church to take a stand on this, for as canonist Ed Peters writes:
We are living through a terrible, perhaps unprecedented, unraveling of respect for Jesus in the Eucharist. Such a crisis compels all of us, I think, to examine our consciences for how our sins might have contributed to this disaster.”
Ed is absolutely correct! We are living in unprecedented times. The Eucharist is given all the reverence of a crust of stale bread, high level Vatican officials are caught soliciting young men while the Church pays out millions to settle pedophile priest lawsuits, the news media spends more time discussing Brittany’s and Lindsay’s latest escapades than covering real news stories, Iran is threatening to blow Israel and the U.S. off the map and is working feverishly to acquire the resources to do so, Russia is re-emerging as a world superpower under a new Russian Czar in Vladimir Putin, and is making very friendly with Iran, Syria, several north African countries, the Baltic republics, and China, China is emerging as the leviathan in world economic and military power, and has recently been war-gaming and conducting joint military exercises with Russia, World leaders are openly and publicly criticizing Israel for it’s policies and reverting to WWII styled anti-semitic rhetoric against the Jewish state, our world’s weather and global climate patterns (irrespective of causation) are massively out-of-whack and geting worse, super-bug, drug resistent pathogens are on the rise and killing more people nationally than AIDS, God is being systematically removed from our classrooms, our state houses, our media outlets, our homes, and in some instances our churches….and the list goes on and on and on…
I know this sounds like a lot of conspiracy theory rambling, but it just feels like a new unprecidented evil is rising in our world, and most folks are simply oblivious to it….
Can the chastisements indicated by the Fatima and Medjugorge visionaries be far off?
JohnT,
With all due respect, the public deposit of faith should be sufficient to answer the questions without invoking private revelation. If folks do not accept revealed truths like the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage, I’m not sure Fatima is going to make a difference to them.
I have to say as well, it almost sounds like you’re looking forward to chastisement, much like the “left behind” devotees are looking forward to the “rapture”. I agree we’re in a mess but I don’t think we’re going to have the luxury of being airlifted out of it and, as they say, elections have consequences …
Anon,
it’s been pretty well determined that, in order to sin in casting a ballot for a pro-abort, you have to be casting it in agreement with that position rather than consciously in spite of it.
You can determine anything you want, the Church instructs otherwise:
From Cardinal Ratzinger: Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles
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.
It is not sinful if there are “proportionate reasons”. Since abortion is the primary issue for all Catholics and vastly outweighs virtually any other consideration, there is no proportionate reason for supporting the most pro-abortion candidate in any election. Intentionality does not come into play as to the fact of sin, it may come into play as to culpability, but that is not our argument here.
God Bless,
Matt
Remember that the Orthodox Church is the State religion in Russia. And has kept Gay Pride activities like the one that is embarrassing Archbishop Niederauer from happening.
Orthodoxy is a required subject in all schools in Russia.
Russia is more officially Christian than America or any country in Europe excepting the Vatican.
Eric, I am a daily communicant. I don’t think being Catholic means having anti-gay “family values.” I did not say anything about gay marriage. I understand that a same-sex couple cannot enter into a canonical marriage. But I don’t see that relating to their right to equal protection under civil law. I don’t see a conflict between being Cathlic and wanting equal rights for same-sex couples. You’re right, this is off thread, so I’m butting out of this conversation for the time being.
“With all due respect, the public deposit of faith should be sufficient to answer the questions without invoking private revelation.”
Huh?
“If folks do not accept revealed truths like the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage, I’m not sure Fatima is going to make a difference to them.”
Then God must have been mistaken when he determined that he would use the chastisements to bring many into the fold, as he has revealed repeatedly through scripture via the prophets, and through revelations delivered to the visionaries at Fatima, Medjugorje, etc. You maybe partially right Mark, many folks may have developed such hardened hearts that events revealed at Fatima and elsewhere will leave them unaffected. However, I suspect that a much larger group than you give credit to, will see what transpires and get off their luke-warm fenceposts and decide for Christ…look at 911; folks were flocking back to the church in droves, for a time. I guess we’ll have to disagree on this issue.
“I have to say as well, it almost sounds like you’re looking forward to chastisement, much like the “left behind” devotees are looking forward to the “rapture”. I agree we’re in a mess but I don’t think we’re going to have the luxury of being airlifted out of it and, as they say, elections have consequences”
As per the above comment…I’d respectfully ask you not to put words in my mouth or theological positions in my constitution here and then argue against them as though they actually were my words or thoughts…it’s an interesting rhetorical maneuver but not especially charitable given your lack of familiarity with who I am and what I beleive.
I’m neither a pro nor an anti-rapture believer…I do not pretend to know exactly how God plans to return and judge us; only that he says such an event will happen, and that I should be looking for andprepared for such an event. A rapture would be nice, but I’m content and prepared to go with God’s flow whatever that might entail.
The first part of your comment though is a difficult issue for me personally. The Bible says that we should be watching for the signs of Christ’s imminent return (so I am), but the Bible also talks about 1/3 of humanity being wiped out…that could be my wife, kids, family, friends, and I…and the “wiping out” part will likely be a horrific, unprecedented world-wide experience…so I do not look forward to that part of the sequence. You are correct that I look forward to the day Christ returns to earth, and if the events I describe in my first post are the birth pains of said return, then I’d be lying if I said I was not looking forward to confirmation that Christ is coming sooner than later…aren’t you? As a new Catholic I sure hope that’s the Catholic consensus.
it would most certainly be a sin to vote for a radical pro-abortionist like Hillary.
Matt,
That’s actually what I’m afraid of — someone like Hillary — and I’m not saying Guiliani is a better alternative.
The only thing is that if it were to end up as a tight race between Hillary and Guiliani; if a person were not to vote at all due to the questionable character of both these candidates or not vote for Guiliani, it would seem like the very thing that could essentially win the presidency for Hillary.
As a newly reverted Catholic I looked for all that stuff too.
Then I wised up, especially about Medjugorie.
I would suggest that all Catholics start with the Bible, the Catechism, and the Early Church Fathers before they go chasing apparitions. The Deposit of Faith is found in the sources that I have suggested, not in any apparition. Yes, I include the Sacred Heart, OL of Guadalupe, and all of them even Fatima.
Follow my advice and you won’t even have time to chase apparitions. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
Ann,
As Emperor, I have the right to enforce any Law I see fit in making. As a Christian Emperor I will not make any laws against the Teaching of the Apostles.
Who said anything about being anti-gay. I’m anti-Sin. That includes all kinds of things that all kinds of people enjoy. Such as bestiality, torture, rape, murder, greed, gluttony, etc… Enabling addicts is no way to help them change. Telling them it’s OK to do what ever they way as long as the person consents is enabling them.
Ann,
I am a daily communicant
hopefully then in your use of the expression “anti-choice” you simply misspoke and don’t see it that way. Perhaps your positions on other matters would be more respected in this forum if you would clarify. We simply don’t trust people who think it’s ok to allow the intentional killing of innocent children. I am very concerned though about your expressed opposition to Church teaching on homosexual unions, which is presented below. I trust that the error is not intentional, and you, as a daily communicant, will swiftly assent to the Church’s teaching now that you are aware of it.
I don’t think being Catholic means having anti-gay “family values.”
I did not say anything about gay marriage. I understand that a same-sex couple cannot enter into a canonical marriage.
But I don’t see that relating to their right to equal protection under civil law. I don’t see a conflict between being Cathlic and wanting equal rights for same-sex couples.
Citing from:
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
God Bless,
Matt
Curious, is the Ann posting on the thread related to Stark?
LINK:
Stark’s comments on war incite GOP backlash
Excerpt:
A House Democrat accused Republicans Thursday of sending troops to Iraq to “get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”
JohnT,
I’d like to congratulate you on your your faith journey into the Church. I share your concern for the toxic moral climate in which we are attempting to raise our children. However,I believe the Church has turned a corner on clergy crisis of the last 15 years. In fact, you have to remember that most of the cases which have come to light occurred between 1960 and 1980. So, I think we need to nuture the theological virtue of hope (reportedly the topic of the Holy Father’s next encyclical).
The Church’s teaching on the “end times” is clear. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, numbers 668-682. Nice commentary here: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/endtimes.htm.
I would never try to put words in your mouth but I think it is legitimate, however, to draw inferences from your statements. I think we want to avoid being so discouraged by the situation of the world that we neglect to take positive steps. IMO, it would be a mistake, for example, to say “If the Republicans fail to nominate a Pro-life candidate, I’m going to sit home on election day in protest.” The election of Hillary Clinton could arguably result in the deaths of millions more children than Rudy Giulini (as morally repugnant as his positions are).
Mark,
The election of Hillary Clinton could arguably result in the deaths of millions more children than Rudy Giulini (as morally repugnant as his positions are).
Thank you for stating this flat out!
As much as I hate Guiliani’s stance on many issues (especially abortion), I’ve got to say — NOT voting for Guiliani (or not voting at all) IS a vote FOR Hillary which would comparably lead the country in a FAR WORSE state.
If not voting for Giuliani is voting one’s conscience and one is voting for a truly Pro-Life (in every meaning of the term) then it is a vote for the candidate and not for Senator Clinton.
John T, the difference between private revelation and the deposit of faith is a degree of authentication. Private revelation may – may not – eventually be authenticated. But I think the point made was that Catholicism already has a wealth of faith to use as guide. If private revelation is helpful, that’s good, but Catholics are not required to accept them.
Your laundry list of awful things is true, but not unprecedented, not even in the past 100 years. Catherine Doherty tells of attending a Mass where the only remaining priest in the area was assassinated during Mass. A soldier ground a Host under his boot, saying something along the lines of, “so much for your God.”
I’d suggest that you read up on some of the martyrs, although I’m drawing a blank for specifics. Certainly, St. Maximillian Kolbe, St. Jean Brebeuf and the North American martyrs, Charles Lwanga in Uganda, Andrew Dung-Lac in Vietnam, Augustine Zhao Rong in China, Andrew Kim Taegon of Korea. Or if you want non-missionary martyrs, look up Thomas Becket, John Fisher, Thomas More.
As for the chastisement part, read Sr. Faustina’s diary.
If you do even a little of the above, that should keep you busy for a while! :^)
If not voting for Giuliani is voting one’s conscience and one is voting for a truly Pro-Life (in every meaning of the term) then it is a vote for the candidate and not for Senator Clinton.
Dr. Eric,
If it were a tight race between Guiliani and Hillary; choosing NOT to vote or voting for another candidate OTHER than Guiliani is essentially the same as casting a vote FOR Hillary.
Remember when Perot was running way back when?
I don’t see a conflict between being Cathlic and wanting equal rights for same-sex couples.
big ol’ red flag going up.
Ann, yes you said you’re leaving this discussion at this time, but that statement calls for a response. When you receive Communion, you are assenting to Church teaching. Because this is off topic, this is more for private pondering rather than a response, but what do you think is the basis for same-sex couples? Do you think that’s God’s ideal will? Not according to Scripture and/or Church teaching. In fact, there is quite a lot in Scripture to the contrary.
Since there’s been a whole lot of less than ideal catechesis lately, I’d suggest simply that you continuing reading up on the Catholic perspective, specifically you might want to read up on the Theology of the Body. In a larger sense, your statement raises a more general idea of what it means to be conformed to God’s will.
Esau, that’s exactly what I’m worried about with the 2008 election.
Esau, that’s exactly what I’m worried about with the 2008 election.
Thanks, Mary Kay.
Other than you and a unique few, I doubt anybody else understands that this is actually the case.
If Rudy and Hilary are my main choices both are evil choices and I might as well vote for somebody I like and see him lose then vote for somebody I don’t like and see him win.
Esau –
I submit that the country might be far worse off in the long run if the GOP is allowed to run a pro-death presidential candidate and find they pay absolutely no political price for having done so.
It may be the best long-term strategy to give the GOP a hard kick in the shins with this next election. Add to this the fact that the GOP doesn’t even bother to make any pretense of being the fiscally conservative party any more, ala Ronald Reagan. What happened to the idea of smaller government?
Fah! Let them flounder in ’08, if they put up Giuliani.
Esau,
That’s actually what I’m afraid of — someone like Hillary — and I’m not saying Guiliani is a better alternative.
Well I am saying he is, but that does not oblige a Catholic in conscience to vote for him, it may be considered prudentially better to vote for a 3rd party or even write in candidate.
The only thing is that if it were to end up as a tight race between Hillary and Guiliani; if a person were not to vote at all due to the questionable character of both these candidates or not vote for Guiliani, it would seem like the very thing that could essentially win the presidency for Hillary.
This is pretty much true, but that is not your intention. Your action is good (voting for a pro-life candidate) and you could conclude that it passes the double effect test.
The argument is that by electing Guiliani you show the Republican leadership that they do not need to respect our values to win an election, this in the end would be the end of the war against the culture of death. On the other hand, the Republicans complete devastation in 2008 would force them to rethink their positon, either pro-life, or move to the left to take enough democrat support to remain viable. That makes it easy for the pro-lifers and the other conservatives to decide whether the GOP has left us or not.
God Bless,
Matt
God Bless,
Matt
Tim,
That’s a fascinating point. A vote for Guiliani could be a vote for a future with *no* pro-life party at all.
Furthermore, if voters would stop assuming that they have only two choices on election day, they would have more choices on election day.
Gah. I’m undecided about this Hillary vs. Giuliani thing. I agree with Tim that the GOP needs to be shown that they need the pro-life vote. But, if Giuliani were running against, say, Joseph Stalin (which he may as well be, I guess), would I really sit home? Argh.
Dr. Erick,
To me, the choice seems to be between Darth Maul(Guiliani) and The Emperor (Hillary).
Either way, it seems like a lost; but, more so, if you go for The Emperor!
Hillary will bring far greater destruction with her liberal agenda than Guiliani with his twisted rational.
I hate both choices; however, considering the POTENTIAL for greater evil ‘consequences’, I would argue Hillary would bring about the worst for the country.
Tim J.
Your argument is one I would actually give some consideration given the GOP’s despicable behaviour in recent times.
Yet, Hillary’s ‘multi-faced’ (I have always been a Yankees/Cubs Fan; I am from wherever you are with whatever accent) liberal agenda is one I am too afraid to even entertain, let alone rule the country.
Posted by: Dr. Eric | Oct 18, 2007 9:09:34 PM:
Dr. Eric for Emperor!
Posted by: Esau | Oct 19, 2007 11:56:57 AM
To me, the choice seems to be between Darth Maul(Guiliani) and The Emperor…Either way, it seems like a lost; but, more so, if you go for The Emperor!
What have you against Dr. Eric? You may need a refresher course in charity from the System Dynamics Group.
Dr. Erik,
Thanks.
Dr. Beckwith,
You wrote:
“The analogy doesn’t work because (1) there is no third person that is the direct target of the harm, i.e., the unborn, (2) the wrongness of abortion is a wrong against both God and man, and (3) profaning the Lord is just a wrong against God, but God, who is perfect, cannot be diminished by this harm. This is why the lynching analogy works better.
Try again.”
Lynching certainly is more similar to abortion than is profaning God’s name. Nevertheless, the point of the counter-reductio was not to provide a better analogy, but to demonstrate that the selection of lynch-mobs only made the answer clear because lynch-mobs are so detestable to your readers.
Pick a less detestable sin and the moral barometer of many changes.
-Turretinfan
Dr. Eric has no “K” in his names just like bicycle.
I am not Emperor Palpatine. 🙂
If Rudy is Darth Maul and Hilary is Emperor Palpatine then consider me Yoda and for me you will vote. Logic you can see.
🙂
You didn’t do very well in your light saber duel with Hilary.
“Dr. Eric for Emperor!”
He has my vote!
Reminds me of;
Arthur: “I am Arthur. I am your KING.”
Peasant Lady: “Well, I didn’t vote for you.”
Arthur: “You don’t vote for kings.”
:-0
I forgot, my Confirmation name is Patrick!
:-0
Dr. Eric,
I’d vote for you, but I don’t know your real (legal) name.
For all you know, a bunch of JA.O devotees might perhaps write-in their ballots “Dr. Eric” and we’ll end up with thousands of erics in the country, be they MD, PhD, MD-PhD!
Sigh, wouldn’t it be nice if there were an election where we didn’t have to choose which candidate would be less evil as President? If we could just raise the bar a little so two or more candidates are not evil we might actually get to choose a politician based on their politics rather than their morals.
Eric is my real first name.
My surname, however remains anonymous as I have a license and a reputation to protect.
🙂
When I am ready to rule, I’ll let you know. 🙂
I would submit that:
– it is morally permissible to vote for the lesser of two evils when no other viable candidate is available to a moral certainty
– it is morally permissible to vote for a non-viable candidate when the viable candidates are in favor of abortion and euthanasia.
– it is not morally permissible to not vote at all.
– it is not morally permissible to vote for a non-viable candidate when there is a viable candidate who opposes abortion and euthanasia and the other viable candidate does not oppose abortion and euthanasia.
Does everybody agree with these premises? If not I would like to discuss that to come to a conclusion.
God Bless,
Matt
ps. those who lament the lack of a pro-life frontrunner they can support ought to expend some energy furthering the cause of one they can.
Mary Kay, I don’t want to take too many column inches since this is off thread, but I do not agree that by recieving communion a person de facto is “agreeing” as you say with all the minutiae of Catholic teaching. The so-called “theology of the body” is only a few years old. While certainly it has merit, it has not stood the test of time, nor does it enjoy any sort of magesterial inerrancy. Are you suggesting that by my saying “Amen” while receiving communion I am agreeing with the recent moto proprio regarding the 1962 sacramentary? Personally, I think the moto proprio expanding the usage of the pre-reformed latin mass was a seriously misguided, foolish error. In your view does that disqualify me from receiving communion?
“Dr. Eric has no “K” in his names just like bicycle.”
Please accept my apologies for the misspelling: doubtless I inserted the “k” for “knowledge.”
-Turretinfan
Ann, what is your understanding of receiving Communion? I’m curious if it is other than receiving the Real Presence of Jesus who gave authority to Peter and successors.
What do consider to be “minutia of Catholic teaching?” Homosexuality? Same-sex couples? Where do same-sex couples fit in your understanding of Cathocism? I had suggested the Theology of the Body because your comments were on sexuality and that’s a specific place to start.
But there are larger underlying principles such as the covenant relationship and papal authority. I’m baffled by your comment about the recent motu propio. What are you disagreeing with? I don’t understand your objection with allowing those who have been attached to the older Missal to be able to attend that Mass.
You need never go to an extraordinary form of the Mass. Personally, my attachment is to the ordinary form and I can’t imagine any occasion for attending an extraoridnary form Mass. But those who prefer the older Missal should be able to attend that Mass without repercussion and that has not always happened.
So if the motu propio need not affect you personally, are you disagreeing with the Pope’s authority to issue it? Your opinion that the motu propio was a “seriously misguided, foolish error” opens a larger discussion than I want to get into at the moment. We had a discussion about this earlier in the year and I’ll put that in a separate post (to honor the “Do not have excessively long posts” rule).
Back in February and March, we had a massive discussion about Church authority. (Smoky, is that when you entered the fray?)
Someone innocently posted to a thread started on April 2, 2004 and the thread grew to 485 posts before its final winding down. Because I had a tough enough time finding it, I’m pasting Esquire’s post:
Mary Kay,
I can’t find the article that listed three levels of the Magisterium’s teaching authority, so I’ll ask Jimmy. The best I can remember was the highest was ex cathedra (infallible), the second was definitive teaching, the third was maybe the deposit of faith. But I’ll have to ask Jimmy. All three required “assent of the faithful.”
I’ll give you my understanding, but if Jimmy says something different, I’d trust what he says.
First, you have infallible dogma, which may either be formally taught or defined by the universal magisterium in three different ways: (a) when the Pope exercises the extraordinary papal magisterium and proclaims by a definitive act, ex cathedra, that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held (see CIC 749.1; Donum Veritatis 15); (b) when the college of bishops, acting in concert with the Pope, exercise the extraordinary episcopal magisterium by gatehring together in an ecumenical council and declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively (see CIC 749.2; DonVer 15); or (c) when the college of bishops, again acting in communion with the Pope, exercise the ordinary universal episcopal magisterium and agree that a particular teaching (not definition) is to be held defintively (see CIC 749.2; DonVer 16). Notice, of the three ways in which infallible teachings may be handed down, only one is based on ex cathedra papal declarations. Infallible teachings and definitions (which are also “definitive” and “irreformable”) that are divinely revealed require the “assent of divine and Catholic faith” (DonVer 23). Those truths that are not divinely revealed but are proposed definitively as being intimately connected to divine revelation are to be “firmly accepted and held” (DonVer 23).
Second, ordinary teachings on matters of faith and morals such as those typically found in encyclicals and curial documents, are not infallible and do not require the assent of divine and Catholic faith. Rather, they require “religious submission of the intellect and will on the part of the faithful” (DonVer 23; Lumen Gentium 25; CIC 752).
Finally, you have ordinary prudential teachings of the universal magisterium on disciplinary matters — often the application of dogmatic truths to particular or concrete historical situations. This requires a “willing and loyal submission to the teaching of the magisterium” (DonVer 24). Donum Veritatis explains the limited circumstances in which theologians, for good reason, may legitimately raise questions about the timeliness, form or content of this third kind of teaching, but not the first two.
Again, that’s just my understanding of the traditional breakdown, based on those three sources and my notes from moral theology. Hope it helps.
Posted by: Esquire | Mar 5, 2007 5:14:58 PM
My thanks again to Esquire whose posts always shed light on the topic.
The simple distinction here is really between discipline and doctrine. Doctrine is the eternal teachings of the Church, it never changes or evolves but it does develop as we grow to understand it more thoroughly. Discipline is practices which should reflect the deposit of faith but sadly sometimes do not. Discipline requires our obedience to the extent that it instructs us, but not our agreement.
The motu proprio is a disciplinary document, as such one can disagree with it’s prudence, it binds only the pastors and bishops as it is addressed to them only.
The teaching document on homosexual unions binds the whole faithful and is not a discipline but a doctrine which the Church has always held.
God Bless,
Matt
I thought doctrine is allowed to evolve. Did not the church develop the teaching of Sacrament over multiple centuries? Is not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception an evolution of doctrine, since Protestants and Orthodox don’t believe this.
personally from my observations, the pro life activists are anti catholics seeking to hurt and maim the true body of christ. they fall under the category of excommunicated because of their lefevre tendecies….time for them to chill out or get a flood of water to put out their wicked flaming Feverites once and for all
me personally…I don’t want the feverites running my catholic church…i don’t think they have the right to make legislation about how to be catholic when they aren’t catholic to begin with. beware of whom you align yourself with…what do these feverites have to gain by targeting democrats???? why aren’t they targeting republicans?
feverites are communist and socialist by nature. they are not american.
could be most likely le feverites are aligned with “dick” cheney’s “bush” (sex attack)
Matt, I don’t know if the magisterium has fully integrated what can be known scientifically about sexual orientation into their various statements. As was the case with Galileo, it can take centuries for the magisterium to catch up with scientific truth. I don’t really see an inconsistency in being a practicing Catholic and giving the pope and bishops a few hundred years to figure out an authentic way to minister to persons with a homosexual orientation. Since this is off thread, I am keeping my comments to a minimum.
Actually, the Church was way ahead of Galileo. He wanted to teach *as fact* that the sun is the center of the universe. Church authorities, who ran the university at which he taught, told him that he could teach his heliocentric theory of the universe as theory, but not as fact, because he hadn’t proven the theory (which he hadn’t).
Bill, then why did they apologize 400 years later?
I thought doctrine is allowed to evolve. Did not the church develop the teaching of Sacrament over multiple centuries?
Doctrine does not evolve, it develops. But an oak is an oak from the acorn to the full grown tree. Development is working out explicitly what was already implicit in the Faith. As, for instance, when the canon of the New Testament was fixed
Since it is a long-standing principle that no one is to blame for the temperment he was born with but he is to blame for what he does with it — a principle so old that it was originally in the context of discussing astrological influences — I foresee a not very complicated application of the principle to these circumstances.
Ann,
The pope apologized for the way Galileo was treated, not for not following his theory of heliocentrism.
And it’s a good thing the Church forbade Galileo from teaching his heliocentric theory of the universe as fact, since, as we now know, the sun is not the center of the universe.
Yeah, Tom Cruise is!
Sounds like a lot of revisionist history on Galileo. Now I need to go back to my research. Might be a few days. Don’t want to take up too much space . . . way off thread at this point. Meanwhile, as a general precept, scientific truth and theologial truth must be able to be reconciled in some way or the other.
“Now I need to go back to my research.” Perhaps that should have been done *before* posting: “Sounds like a lot of revisionist history on Gelileo.”
= Galileo
Ann,
Matt, I don’t know if the magisterium has fully integrated what can be known scientifically about sexual orientation into their various statements. As was the case with Galileo, it can take centuries for the magisterium to catch up with scientific truth. I don’t really see an inconsistency in being a practicing Catholic and giving the pope and bishops a few hundred years to figure out an authentic way to minister to persons with a homosexual orientation. Since this is off thread, I am keeping my comments to a minimum.
You really are missing the point aren’t you? An “authentic way to minister to persons with a homosexual orientation” has nothing to do with science, it has to do with faith. It is a fact that homosexual behaviour is forbidden by the teachings of Jesus Christ, that will never change.
So you really consider your own teaching above the Pope and the Bishops?
Colossians 2:8
Matthew 7:15
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
God Bless,
Matt
Very exciting results from the Value Voter’s Summit. Mike Huckabee overwhelms all the other candidates in the onsite polls, and shares a dominating lead with Mitt Romney when web voting is included. None of the other candidates are even close without the web poll included. This suggests to me that Huckabee is the leader who moral voters should standing with, as he is clearly in the top tier, and is strong on all of the serious moral issues.
Onsite Straw Poll Results
Mike Huckabee 51.26%
Mitt Romney 10.40%
Fred Thompson 8.09%
Tom Tancredo 6.83%
Rudy Giuliani 6.30%
Duncan Hunter 5.67%
John McCain 3.15%
Sam Brownback 2.73%
Ron Paul 2.63%
Undecided 1.16%
Not Voting 0.74%
Barack Obama 0.53%
Christopher Dodd 0.21%
Dennis Kucinich 0.11%
Joe Biden 0.11%
Hillary Clinton 0.00%
John Edwards 0.00%
Mike Gravel 0.00%
Bill Richardson 0.00%
Web and Onsite Straw Poll Results
Mitt Romney 27.62%
Mike Huckabee 27.15%
Ron Paul 14.98%
Fred Thompson 9.77%
Undecided 5.70%
Sam Brownback 5.14%
Duncan Hunter 2.42%
Tom Tancredo 2.30%
Rudy Giuliani 1.85%
John McCain 1.40%
Not Voting 1.16%
Barack Obama 0.16%
Joe Biden 0.09%
Hillary Clinton 0.09%
John Edwards 0.07%
Dennis Kucinich 0.07%
Christopher Dodd 0.03%
Bill Richardson 0.03%
Mike Gravel 0.02%
God Bless,
Matt
Ann,
Meanwhile, as a general precept, scientific truth and theologial truth must be able to be reconciled in some way or the other.
Below is an excerpt from Homosexuality and Hope a statement of the Catholic Medical Association.
and the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2357:
May I suggest you also read these documents:
PERSONA HUMANA
DECLARATION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
Last I checked, sexual acts between consenting adults of any persuasion are already legal in civil society without any requirement for a civil license. So exactly what “evil” is it that Catholics are called to not legalize? Is it evil for people of the same sex to inherit property from one another, or get healthcare on the same policy, or have hospital visitation?
In my state, they call arrangements between persons of the same sex “civil unions” and the partners can in fact be heterosexual, homosexual, asexual or whatever. Nothing in that law authorizes or mandates the persons engage in sexual acts. I don’t even presume civil marriage between man and woman mandates or legitimizes sexual activity. So why should I think it would if it involved two persons of the same sex?
If by “homosexual union” / “evil” we are referring to a sexual act, then as I said, it’s already legally recognized in civil society and protected by the Constitution no less. If instead we are referring to inheritance, insurance, hospital visitation and the like, then I fail to see what’s “homosexual” about those, and hence why I should be opposed to them. I don’t think homosexuality increases because of hospital visitation rights. Do you?
Charles, from the passage that you quoted it can be seen that the problem with recognizing same-sex ‘unions’ is legitimization. That means that recognizing these ‘unions’ would send the message that they are okay. That is a bad thing.
Matt,
People who vote on the internet are not the people who vote in real life.
Internet geeks are young people and the real voters are the elderly.
I realize this is a broad generalization.
the problem with recognizing same-sex ‘unions’ is legitimization. That means that recognizing these ‘unions’ would send the message that they are okay.
Have civil union laws encouraged you to have sex with a man or made you think it would be “okay”? I’ve never heard of anyone who decided to have sex with someone of the same gender because they passed a civil union law. Like I said before, the civil union law isn’t about a sex act and people don’t need a license to have sex. Anyway, the law also permits me to lie, divorce my wife, get a vasectomy, be uncharitable, have sex with as many people as I want, etc. but the law isn’t encouraging me to do it. Legal is not the same as legitimate or encouraging. Not in my book at least.
In my state, they call arrangements between persons of the same sex “civil unions” and the partners can in fact be heterosexual, homosexual, asexual or whatever.
And are you interested in a bridge? It’s old but sturdy.
Charles,
the term you are struggling with is “legitimize”. The Holy See is telling us that it’s immoral to recognize such a relationship in fact or in law. That doesn’t mean that we take away rights that a person would normally have, such as passing on their inheritence to whomever they choose. It means not granting special protections to relationships other than a public and formal marriage between a man and a woman.
Before we continue, what is your belief about the morality of homosexual activity? If you don’t believe it’s immoral than you couldn’t possibly understand what the Church teaches beyond that.
God Bless,
Matt
Dr. Eric,
I agree with you. The difference in results highlights that there are many people who will take the time to sign up and vote in a poll for Ron Paul but that doesn’t translate to reality at the voting booth.
God Bless,
Matt
Which means, just as in previous elections that the majority of the issues will only be those that pertain to senior citizens (not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
The Holy See is telling us that it’s immoral to recognize such a relationship in fact or in law.
The Holy See is talking about a homoSEXUAL relationship. A civil union is not defined as a sexual relationship. Like I said before, a civil union can be between persons who are heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, celibate or whatever. There is, by law, no sexual activity requirement to a civil union. If persons in a civil union choose to engage in sexual activity, that is an independent choice not conditioned upon or necessitating civil union.
It means not granting special protections to relationships other than a public and formal marriage between a man and a woman.
Society grants “special protections” all over the place, to parents, children, the homeless, the disabled, the mentally ill, minorities, the police, senior citizens, airlines, corporate entities, non-profits, etc. There is nothing inherently evil in giving protections to additional persons/relationships.
what is your belief about the morality of homosexual activity?
Homosexual activity and a civil union are not the same thing, nor is either dependent upon the other.
Charles,
The Holy See is telling us that it’s immoral to recognize such a relationship in fact or in law.
The Holy See is talking about a homoSEXUAL relationship. A civil union is not defined as a sexual relationship. Like I said before, a civil union can be between persons who are heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, celibate or whatever. There is, by law, no sexual activity requirement to a civil union. If persons in a civil union choose to engage in sexual activity, that is an independent choice not conditioned upon or necessitating civil union.
The Holy See has made it clear that it is immoral to support any sort of civil designation of something resembling marriage that would apply to homosexuals (celibate or not), if you don’t agree that’s your call but you have to accept that you are dissenting from the Church’s teaching.
Society grants “special protections” all over the place, to parents, children, the homeless, the disabled, the mentally ill, minorities, the police, senior citizens, airlines, corporate entities, non-profits, etc. There is nothing inherently evil in giving protections to additional persons/relationships.
Q:
what is your belief about the morality of homosexual activity?
A:
Homosexual activity and a civil union are not the same thing, nor is either dependent upon the other.
If you asked me that question I would say that I assent to the Church’s teaching that homosexual activity is immoral. In the absence of a different response, we can only assume that you believe that the activity is not immoral, and that would color your beliefs about homosexual civil unions.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt, you don’t speak for the Holy See any more than the homosexual person I heard this afternoon does. But he knows that, do you? Nothing you’ve posted has disproven a single thing I’ve said. Not a single thing. A civil union by law is not defined as a sexual relationship or “homosexual union.” If you choose to confound it as such, if you choose to “assume”, that’s your own addition to the picture and your own choice.
Matt, you nailed it. The non-answer was an answer. You wrote clearly. The one who accused you of “confound(ing)” did the confounding. After all, one must justify one’s dissent to oneself.
Charles,
The Church is condemning civil recognition for unions between homosexuals. That would apply regardless of the label and “inclusiveness” you wish to apply.
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
God Bless,
Matt
bill,
thanks! It’s really just the clarity of our current Holy Father being echoed here. If only the dissenters would read the plain language of the Church they would either be Catholic or not Catholic rather than cafeteria Catholics.
God Bless,
Matt
The Church is condemning civil recognition for unions between homosexuals
Civil unions are not defined as “unions between homosexuals.” They may be between persons of any sexual orientation or lack thereof, including heterosexuals if that be their choice. A civil union is not a sex act, is not dependent upon a sex act and does not necessitate a sex act of any kind.
Charles,
The Church is condemning civil recognition for unions between homosexuals
Civil unions are not defined as “unions between homosexuals.” They may be between persons of any sexual orientation or lack thereof, including heterosexuals if that be their choice. A civil union is not a sex act, is not dependent upon a sex act and does not necessitate a sex act of any kind.
By definition the type of union you are referring to it would provide for legal recognition of homosexual “civil unions” which the Church has condemned, like it or not you are in opposition to the Church.
Do you assent to the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts?
God Bless,
Matt
By definition the type of union you are referring to it would provide for legal recognition of homosexual “civil unions” which the Church has condemned
No, it is quite the opposite. Legally, a civil union does not recognize the sexual orientation or sexual activity of the persons. And it can be a sin against charity to assume persons in a civil union are sexually active, because in fact a civil union is not defined as a sexual relationship.
Do you assent to the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts?
I do not deny the Church’s true teaching on homosexual acts by pointing out the fact that a civil union is not defined by homosexual acts.
Charles,
ok, I think we understand where you are coming from. Good luck with that.
God Bless,
Matt
No, it is quite the opposite. Legally, a civil union does not recognize the sexual orientation or sexual activity of the persons. And it can be a sin against charity to assume persons in a civil union are sexually active, because in fact a civil union is not defined as a sexual relationship.
It’s a quasi-marriage-like condition that ignores the fact that marriage necessarily involves a sexual relationship and can, in both civil and canon law, be annulled for the lack of sexual relationships.
The state has no interest in such non-sexual relationships that justifies the price it would inflict on the rest of us: higher prices for insurance, loss of estate taxes, etc.
I believe that a will can be made out to benefit anyone at all – even dogs, apparently. Same thing with life insurance policies, etc… and legal contracts can be drawn up between two private parties for almost any purpose.
The civil union concept is being used as the point of the spear to eventually secure state recognition of homosexual “marriage”. The asexual nature of *current* civil union laws (if that is the case) is a red herring. The point is, they are trying to redefine “family” and “household” in completely novel terms, maintaining that it should be open to any two people (well, two for now), regardless of their relationship. The purpose of this is to open the door to legal homosexual marriage down the road.
I do think that no-fault divorce has done far more damage to the family than would homosexual unions at this point. No-fault divorce should be taken right up to the Supreme Court and completely overturned. It is inherently unjust. Civil unions would be another nail in the coffin of the nuclear family, making it that much harder to reverse the damage.
If by “homosexual union” / “evil” we are referring to a sexual act, then as I said, it’s already legally recognized in civil society and protected by the Constitution no less.
Charles,
Just because Law & Government protects it and declares it LEGAL doesn’t actually mean it’s NOT EVIL.
Take, for example, SLAVERY!
It’s a quasi-marriage-like condition that ignores the fact that marriage necessarily involves a sexual relationship and can, in both civil and canon law, be annulled for the lack of sexual relationships.
No, that is not the fact. In the civil law of my state, lack of a sexual relationship is not sufficient grounds for annulment of a marriage. Rather, in that regard, it requires a -concealed- intent not to consummate the marriage. A marriage cannot be annulled simply because the parties enter with no intent to consummate or even a premeditated (not concealed) intent not to consummate the marriage.
The state has no interest in such non-sexual relationships that justifies the price it would inflict on the rest of us: higher prices for insurance, loss of estate taxes, etc.
The state, from the people to the legislature to the courts, says otherwise.
legal contracts can be drawn up between two private parties for almost any purpose.
Civil union, like marriage, provides benefits that contracts between two persons cannot provide.
The civil union concept is being used as the point of the spear to eventually secure state recognition of homosexual “marriage”.
Some, perhaps many, are, but the fact is, not all people are using or will use civil unions for that purpose. There are many people who are or would use a civil union without any desire whatsoever that they be considered “married” or have their sexual interests or lack thereof recognized.
The purpose of this is to open the door to legal homosexual marriage down the road.
That is but “a” purpose of some, not all, not “the” purpose.
Just because Law & Government protects it and declares it LEGAL doesn’t actually mean it’s NOT EVIL.
That may well be, but when it comes to civil union, it has not been proven to be evil, any more than a knife or baseball bat or civil marriage is evil. Even civil divorce is not intrinsically evil.
That may well be, but when it comes to civil union, it has not been proven to be evil, any more than a knife or baseball bat or civil marriage is evil.
Civil union legitimizes the homosexual relations between two such individuals.
In that case, they are evil to the extent that they call ‘evil’ ‘good’; that is, they go to the extent of re-categorizing a sinful act as something permissible and legitimate.
Civil union legitimizes the homosexual relations between two such individuals.
As a legal construct, civil union is independent of the two individuals’ sexual activity or lack thereof, and as such it no more legitimizes homosexual relations than it does celibacy or birdwatching. If persons in a civil union choose to engage in sexual activity, that is an independent choice not conditioned upon or necessitating civil union. Civil union as it’s defined no more legitimizes homosexual acts than civil marriage as it’s defined legitimizes the choice of millions of married people to engage in sexually open relationships, 3-ways, spousal abuse, abortion, the Pill or whatever.
they go to the extent of re-categorizing a sinful act as something permissible and legitimate.
The “re-categorizing” is confounding a sinful act with civil union.
Charles,
Civil union as it’s defined no more legitimizes homosexual acts than civil marriage as it’s defined legitimizes the choice of millions of married people to engage in sexually open relationships, 3-ways, spousal abuse, abortion, the Pill or whatever.
Any law put in place that gives special rights for those who engage in such things would legitimize them and as such be contrary to the natural law and Catholic teachings JUST AS CIVIL UNIONS FOR HOMOSEXUALS OR OTHER NON-MARRIED PEOPLE IS.
Did you read the linked document at all? Do you care what the Church teaches on this? Do you consider homosexual behaviour to be immoral?
God Bless,
Matt
Any law put in place that gives special rights for those who engage in such things would legitimize them and as such be contrary to the natural law and Catholic teachings JUST AS CIVIL UNIONS FOR HOMOSEXUALS OR OTHER NON-MARRIED PEOPLE IS.
Civil union does not give any special rights for engaging in such things. The rights of civil union are not conditioned upon or a product of sex acts between persons of the same sex. No sexual behavior rewards anyone with the rights of civil union.
Did you read the linked document at all? Do you care what the Church teaches on this? Do you consider homosexual behaviour to be immoral?
The only union referred to in that document is a sexual union between persons of the same sex. A civil union is not a sexual union, and therefore not the subject of that document. There is, by law, no sexual activity scope or requirement to a civil union. If persons in a civil union choose to engage in sexual activity, that is an independent choice not conditioned upon or necessitating civil union.
Charles,
You must be confused about which document I was referring to. Since this document refers to unions between homosexual persons. Since the “civil unions” you refer to would apply to homosexual persons it seems plain English to interpret it as applicable. Nothing in the document suggests that it has a sex act requirement, simply the legitimization of a union between two homosexuals which gives them rights akin to marriage.
Do you assent to the Church’s teaching on homosexual behavior? I know that if you don’t we have to talk about that before you could understand the Church’s teaching on unions between homosexuals.
God Bless,
Matt
a union between two homosexuals
Sorry, but the “Church refuses to consider the person as a ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’.”
Nothing in the document suggests that it has a sex act requirement
Not so. How could you miss the many statements, among which are: “Homosexual acts ‘close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved’.” And, “homosexual practices are ‘sins gravely contrary to chastity’.” And, “Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted… by approval of homosexual acts.” And, “it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State.”
Over and over it again, the document refers to approval and recognition of sexual acts. And as I have very clearly pointed out, civil unions do not provide “specific and categorical legal recognition by the State” of any sexual acts.
Do you assent to the Church’s teaching on homosexual behavior?
I am sharing that teaching with you. Do you assent to the Church’s teaching?
Charles,
Before you can assent to the Church’s teachings on civil unions between homosexuals, you need to first understand and assent to the Church’s teachings on homosexual acts and behaviour, that they are immoral.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
If you assent to that please indicate it, otherwise further discussion is a waste of both your time and mine.
God Bless,
Matt
Charles Shurman,
May I ask how you reconcile your understanding of civil unions with this quotation from the document?
Or this quotation?
Since it is a matter of justice to deny “legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital” and all citizens can make use of the provisions of law to protect their rights it would be unjust to sacrifice the common good by recognizing any union other than marriage between a man and a woman with marital rights.
Also if you Google “civil unions” the information is almost exclusively about granting legal recognition to homosexual unions. Which whether you accept it or not is against Church teaching.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
thanks, that ends the lesson.
Matth
homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered… If you assent to that please indicate it, otherwise further discussion is a waste of both your time and mine.
Every point I’ve made has already been conditioned on the logical premise that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Further assent is what would be a waste of my time. It adds nothing and detracts nothing from what I’ve posted.
The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.
By law, civil union is not a “form of cohabitation.” Cohabitation is not even a requirement for civil union. In addition, the law does not give the social and legal status of marriage to civil union. People in civil union are not married. Civil union and marriage are different.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens.
As I’ve already made clear, (1) civil union is not the same as “homosexual union,” (2) the law does not give legal recognition with respect to any sex act, sexual orientation, or lack thereof, and (3) it’s not about “simply living together” as made obvious by the fact that cohabitation isn’t even a requirement.
It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society
That does not describe civil union, as for example, civil union is not simply about protecting personal goods.
Also if you Google “civil unions” the information is almost exclusively about granting legal recognition to homosexual unions
Unfortunately, a Google popularity search and someone’s interpretation of it are about as relevant and valid as reading the entrails of a goat sacrifice.
Le-git-i-mi-za-tion.
The wording of a particular law recognizing ‘civil unions’ may not specifically require that the united perform homosexual acts, but everyone knows that it is intended for ‘homosexuals’. Pretending otherwise is just silly and certainly won’t fool anyone who is paying attention, which fortunately includes most of the folks here.
Charles Shurman,
It is good to know that there is hope that you will see just how wrong and irrelevant your interpretation is in deciding the matter.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
notice he couldn’t simply say: “yes, I assent”, he only said that his argument was based on that premise.
God Bless,
Matt
Charles Shurman,
“In addition, the law does not give the social and legal status of marriage to civil union. People in civil union are not married. Civil union and marriage are different.”
Just to show how wrong your understanding is:
Vermont Act 91, 2000 Session
Vermont law requires that “The couple must be of the same gender
Also please read carefully section #6.
It states quite clearly that the legal consequences are to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.
Well clear to everyone but you for some reason.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Le-git-i-mi-za-tion. The wording of a particular law recognizing ‘civil unions’ may not specifically require that the united perform homosexual acts, but everyone knows that it is intended for ‘homosexuals’.
The intent of the law is to protect people, to include (but not limited to) homosexual persons. Protecting homosexual persons is not the same as legitimizing homosexual acts. Example: You’re legally protected to penetrate your wife with a crucifix if that’s what the two of you wish, but that protection doesn’t legitimize it.
Just to show how wrong your understanding is:
Inocencio, must I remind you, you are not qualified to speak in regard to my understanding. You have your understanding, not mine. Do you understand? If you had my understanding, you’d see that nothing you posted is contrary to anything I’ve said. What you’ve posted collaborates my posts. It is simply your own understanding that is in conflict.
Vermont law requires that “The couple must be of the same gender
Am I now in Vermont? If I were, I’d know from the statement of Vermont law you’ve quoted that civil unions are clearly not defined to be marriages, just as I said: “People in civil union are not married. Civil union and marriage are different.” I wouldn’t advise anyone with a Vermont civil union to go around claiming to have a marriage. It’s just not so.
Also please read carefully section #6. It states quite clearly that the legal consequences are to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.
Inocencio, saying something doesn’t always make it so, even if you’re the State of Vermont. Vermont talks big, but it’s a small state without even the power to mandate that persons within its own geographic boundaries give the same social and legal status of marriage to civil union. In fact, not even the federal government has the power to do that. It requires the assent of the entire nation, if not a large chuck of the world. If your thinking is limited to a statement by the State of Vermont, your understanding of this issue is very limited. Just as one simple example, if you had a Vermont civil union, you could go to countless employers even within Vermont and quickly discover that a civil union does not carry the same weight as a marriage even though that law you claim makes it seem like it should. You might even be able to just knock on a neighbor’s door to find that out. And that’s with everyone obeying the law.
“Marriage” is a very special word, a gateway to innumerable benefits, not only legally but socially, culturally, etc. as well. For all its might, Vermont law can’t even make the legal aspects of civil union match those of marriage. It only makes a Vermont sized step toward it without reaching it. As I said, Vermont [or fill in the blank] law does not give the social and legal status of marriage to civil union. It doesn’t have the power to.
Example: You’re legally protected to penetrate your wife with a crucifix if that’s what the two of you wish, but that protection doesn’t legitimize it.
1. That’s a rather horrendous example.
2. With this example, you just proved that the legal protection actually legitimizes the act!
For example, say I am legally protected to kill you because your last name is “Shurman”.
The fact that the act of murder is protected actually legitimizes it by virtue of the act in itself!
I think it’s time for Jimmy to unsheath Glamdring. (not to mention, delete the vulgar comment).
…not to mention, delete the vulgar comment.
I believe Mr. Shurman’s intent was to submit something as offensive to the Catholic audience as to distract them from the fallacious nature of his poor arguments.
I would gather that the intellectually-challenged Mr. Shurman would say that a Law that permits the mass murder of Jews merely protects people to commit such horrible acts but does not actually legitimize it.
Again, the fallacious and defective nature of his poor intellect, no doubt.
Esau, if by “legitimize” you simply mean to make legal, then yes, it’s legitimate to do all sorts of horrendous things. But that’s not what I’m saying when I speak of “legitimize.” Rather, the word has many meanings, including to make in accord with logical reasoning; reasonable. If you want to claim genocide is legitimate because someone passes a law saying so, I’ll leave you to ponder.
I believe Mr. Shurman’s intent was to submit something as offensive to the Catholic audience as to distract them from the fallacious nature of his poor arguments.
People believe all sorts of crazy things. But the truth will set you free. I had no intent to be offensive. I was giving a clear example of something unreasonable / offensive with the intent to show that protection doesn’t change its color.
Charles Shurman,
Do you even know the meaning of “legi-ti-mize”?
Here, allow me to assist in your education:
legitimize:
a accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements
b conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards
Thus, the very protection afforded to such heinous acts actually legitimizes the act by virtue of the protection of said act!
Esau, to understand him, look at everything he posts from the point of view of justification.
Charles Shurman,
You have shown by your own words just how wrong your understanding is of Catholic teaching and state law.
As for your offensive comment if that is the only example you can think of you are a very disturbed person.
You have my pity and my prayers.
Take care and God bless,
Inocecnio
J+M+J
Charles Shurman,
I had no intent to be offensive.
Please don’t attempt to insult the intelligence of the audience even further.
It is quite evident by the very nature of your example that your intent was indeed to offend the audience — you stated quite plainly:
“Example: You’re legally protected to penetrate your wife with a crucifix if that’s what the two of you wish, but that protection doesn’t legitimize it.”
The fact that you specifically chose something that would be as offensive to a Catholic audience demonstrates that your intent was indeed to offend.
I repeat — the fact that protection is afforded to such heinous acts actually legitimizes the act by virtue of the protection of said act!
Esau, here’s a legitimate definition:
le·git·i·mize
tr. v.
— to make legitimate
le·git·i·mate
adj.
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.
5. Born of legally married parents: legitimate issue.
6. Of, relating to, or ruling by hereditary right: a legitimate monarch.
7. Of or relating to drama of high professional quality that excludes burlesque, vaudeville, and some forms of musical comedy
Definition #3 is a form of definition #2, assuming your established or accepted standard is logic and reason.
You have shown by your own words just how wrong your understanding is of Catholic teaching and state law.
No, you’ve only shown yourself how wrong your own understanding is of my words.
Please don’t attempt to insult the intelligence of the audience even further.
I have no need to do that.
It is quite evident by the very nature of your example that your intent was indeed to offend the audience.
I’m as much the audience as you. I’m not interested in offending the audience. So recheck your evidence before you convict, or you may well find you’ve convicted yourself. Fair warning.
I repeat — the fact that protection is afforded to such heinous acts actually legitimizes the act by virtue of the protection of said act!
I repeat, that is not the definition I was using. But I also repeat, that too is a possible definition.
The issue here is not the absence of a proscription (ie. laws against homosexuals living together or passing on their inheritence etc.) but not allowing laws which enshrine the union and make it equivalent in any legal sense to marriage.
The absence of a proscription against a thing does not necessarily legitimize it, but it is when the thing is specifically privelaged. Civil union laws privelage unions which are not marriages in similar ways to how marriage is privelaged, thus they violate the teaching of the Church, which doesn’t matter to Charles anyway but it does to us.
God Bless,
Matt
Charles Shurman:
I’m as much the audience as you. I’m not interested in offending the audience. So recheck your evidence before you convict, or you may well find you’ve convicted yourself. Fair warning.
No need for me to convict you —
Your own words do that and, in particular, the specific choice of example:
“Example: You’re legally protected to penetrate your wife with a crucifix if that’s what the two of you wish, but that protection doesn’t legitimize it.”
Again, in the legal forum, the fact that there is actual protection afforded to the heinous act, in effect, legitimizes said act.
There is nothing you have said thus far that has rendered that null.
Civil union laws privelage unions which are not marriages in similar ways to how marriage is privelaged, thus they violate the teaching of the Church
Unfortunately, you haven’t proven your claim that it violates Church teaching. But I’ll give you that the privileges are “similar.” After all, even the sun and moon are similar in ways.
No need for me to convict you
I never said you could.
Again, in the legal forum, the fact that there is actual protection afforded to the heinous act, in effect, legitimizes said act.
Yes, as I’ve said, that’s one of several definitions.
There is nothing you have said thus far that has rendered that null.
I hope not as I’ve never attempted to render it null. I’ve been agreeing from the beginning. It’s one of several definitions. Just not the one I was using.
Charles,
you have read the document right? Are you denying it’s authority? Because we have amply demonstrated that it applies to your notional civil union.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt, the document speaks for itself. Anything and everything you add to it, your paraphrases, your selection of quotes, your “demonstration” and opinion that it’s ample is your own. The document does not give you authority to do that nor has anyone qualified you to do it. I respect your opinion, but that’s what it is.
Charles,
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.
zzzzzzzzzzzz
wake me up when you actually read this. No further exegesis is necessary.
God Bless,
Matt
I promised to butt out for a while since this conversation was going so off-thread. Going back to the outset, this was about the question of whether or not to deny communion to persons. As a Eucharistic Minister, I would be very hesitant to deny communion to anyone. I could not envision a situation in which I would deny communion to a person who presents her/himself to me. Whatever her or his situation, it is not for me to judge. I’m glad I am not an EM in St. Louis, because I find that most of the bishops (unlike the minority, R.B. and his ilk) seem much more pastoral with regard to this matter. You guys who have a disagreement with Charles, would you be so bold as to refuse him communion if he presented himself to you? I would stop being an EM if I was forced to deny communion to people.
Ann,
Charles never claimed to be Catholic, but in any event, he has not demonstrated “manifest grave sin”.
If you give communion to someone who is in a state of grave sin, do you know that they are drinking judgement on them? Would you really want to help someone do that?
I’m sure your sympathy has to do with your own dissent of the teachings on homosexuality, I pray you reconsider that position.
God Bless,
Matt
Ann,
“As a Eucharistic Minister, I would be very hesitant to deny communion to anyone.”
The name “minister of the Eucharist” or “Eucharistic Minister” belongs properly to the Priest alone. You are an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
As Redemptionis Sacramentum states:
I realize the title is long but that is because it is supposed to an extraordinary function and not an ordinary one.
The document also states:
Giving the Holy Eucharist to a person who is obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin is sacrilegous and scandalous and a person should stop being an EMHC if they do not understand that fact.
To anyone who is an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion I would highly recommend reading Redemptionis Sacramentum especially articles 43-47 and 154-159.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
A) If we bring back (kneeling at) altar rails to receive Him, we all might remember better that it is indeed Jesus that we are receiving; no offense to EMHCs, but that would turn Communion folly back onto the truly foolish. That would catechize better than any refresher course of words. Let’s push for that sane return–we know (as do the Bishops) it’s only going to get worse.
B) Many good people have done my Catholic homework for me: Ron Paul is the best man for the job. (We can’t simply vote for the “most likely to win” pro-respect-life candidate, else we are truly sheeple — and rather undemocratic (small d) ones at that!) If we could mobilize the Catholic base into supporting Paul, we’d at least be sending an honest message.
JustMe,
A – absolutely.
B – not so sure, Ron Paul is a little to comfortable with gay marriage for me, and well, he’s a little looney. He also seems to suggest that abortion regulation is a matter of states rights. Sorry, the protection of life and equal protection trump the right to kill your child in any state.
Look at Huckabee, not only strongly pro-life, but pro-traditional marriage, and actually supports a constitutional amendment on both of those issues. He would also not surrender in the war in Iraq and against the Islamo-fascists elsewhere. He will not abandon our friends either. He will not abolish the FBI and leave us unprotected from terror at home.
God Bless,
Matt
Inocencio, hi, I’m aware of the semantical differences with EMHC vs. EM, but the cow’s been out of the barn a long time. At my church, they’ve been saying “E.M.” which can mean either Eucharistic Minister or Extraordinary Minister, and it seems to satisfy the issue of terminology. With the declining number of priests in most diocesan parishes, it’s hard to imagine a place where E.M.’s aren’t truly necessary, with the exception of some small places. Then, if the norm is that E.M.’s are usually needed, how “extraordinary” are they, really? I guess ontologically they might be considered so, but if in actual practice they are of necessity put into frequent use, in one sense they are indeed ordinary, in that they are called into service more often than not. On any given Sunday, I would hazard a guess that most Catholics throughout the world receive communion from a non-ordained person; hence there is at least a little confusion with regard to calling the practice “extraordinary.” I understand that the word is being used to reinforce the fact that this is a clerical role, but it does so imperfectly.
Ann,
I get the impression you just disregard Church teachings and documents that seem inconvenient to your beliefs. That is why I quoted article [46] of Redemptionis Sacramentum above.
I would guess that it is easy to pick an choose what to believe when the only authority you show obedience to is yourself.
Lord, have mercy on both our souls.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J