No communion for Obama supporters

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

That's the thing. Any sane person is going to agree that, by the time a baby is born alive, it's, well, alive. And many world religions, including my own, dictate, "Thou shalt not kill." So murdering the two-day-old baby is wrong. BUT not everyone agrees that life begins at conception. If you think life begins at conception, fine, don't have an abortion. But I DON'T believe life begins at conception. There's no proof either way. So until there is conclusive proof either way, kindly stay out of my uterus.

As to "proof" - I'm not sure what you would regard as acceptable. At what point do you believe an embryo/fetus is alive? Is it the point at which there is a heartbeat? A beating heart = life seems to be pretty straight forward. Is it at the point of viability? That is of course a slippery slope - only 5 - 10 years ago babies who can now be saved would not have been considered viable. Is it when a certain stage of development has been reached? A student today told me he believes life begins when X number of chromosomes are present. I'd never heard that definition before.

The "stay out of my uterus" argument seems to argue that because there is no agreement, we should err on the side of the more restrictive definition of life. I would say that if there is a question we should err on the side of the more open definition of life. That being the case, it's not your uterus that is being discussed. It's the zygote/fetus/baby/whatever you care to call it that is there, and his/her/its rights that are the topic of discussion. As I said earlier, castigating those who disagree with your viewpoint as somehow trying to deprive you of your rights misses the actual point of concern for whether or not a human life is being taken. Do you really want to live amongst those who would say "I believe a life is being taken, but it's none of my business"? I can understand arguing that a life is not being taken, but I can't understand counseling those who think a life is being lost and who believe they should do something about it to stand aside. The 20th century had plenty of examples of that, and it wasn't pretty.

It's interesting that we are also seeing a great deal of debate as to when life is over - there is a case now where an orthodox Jewish family whose son is on a respirator is saying that because their rabbinical authority has ruled that as long as his heart is beating he is alive, even though he has absolutely no brain function. If he were taken off the respirator he would die - I imagine what will happen is that he will be taken out of the hospital (which is arguing that there is no treatment for his current condition, and the insurance company will not pay for his care) and taken home or to another facility. Both sides are trying to avoid taking it to court.

[aephi alum]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

As to "proof" - I'm not sure what you would regard as acceptable. At what point do you believe an embryo/fetus is alive? Is it the point at which there is a heartbeat? A beating heart = life seems to be pretty straight forward. Is it at the point of viability? That is of course a slippery slope - only 5 - 10 years ago babies who can now be saved would not have been considered viable. Is it when a certain stage of development has been reached? A student today told me he believes life begins when X number of chromosomes are present. I'd never heard that definition before.

The "stay out of my uterus" argument seems to argue that because there is no agreement, we should err on the side of the more restrictive definition of life. I would say that if there is a question we should err on the side of the more open definition of life. That being the case, it's not your uterus that is being discussed. It's the zygote/fetus/baby/whatever you care to call it that is there, and his/her/its rights that are the topic of discussion. As I said earlier, castigating those who disagree with your viewpoint as somehow trying to deprive you of your rights misses the actual point of concern for whether or not a human life is being taken. Do you really want to live amongst those who would say "I believe a life is being taken, but it's none of my business"? I can understand arguing that a life is not being taken, but I can't understand counseling those who think a life is being lost and who believe they should do something about it to stand aside. The 20th century had plenty of examples of that, and it wasn't pretty.

It's interesting that we are also seeing a great deal of debate as to when life is over - there is a case now where an orthodox Jewish family whose son is on a respirator is saying that because their rabbinical authority has ruled that as long as his heart is beating he is alive, even though he has absolutely no brain function. If he were taken off the respirator he would die - I imagine what will happen is that he will be taken out of the hospital (which is arguing that there is no treatment for his current condition, and the insurance company will not pay for his care) and taken home or to another facility. Both sides are trying to avoid taking it to court.

We are not going to agree. You want to err on the side of "a fetus / unborn baby is alive from the moment of conception" - that is your right. I choose to err on the side of "abortion of a non-viable fetus is not 'murder'" - that is my right.

The Church also takes a hard line against any form of birth control other than abstinence or natural family planning. Even those forms of birth control that are intended to prevent fertilization from taking place at all, are considered sinful and wrong. That means no tubal ligation, no vasectomy, no diaphragm, not even a condom. Perhaps the Church would like to outlaw condom sales?

But I digress. The issue here is that a priest has declared (without any backing from higher-ups in the Church hierarchy, as far as I am aware) that those of his parishioners who voted for Obama should not receive communion unless and until they do penance for their vote.

The Catholic Church's pro-life stance (as it was taught to me in Catholic school) is that life begins at conception and ends when the body naturally expires as a result of illness or injury. Killing a person before they would naturally die, therefore, is murder - a sin. Execution of criminals would thus fall under the category of murder. McCain is in favor of the death penalty. So he's not in line with the Church's pro-life stance either. So isn't it just as "wrong" and "sinful" to support McCain as it is to support Obama?

[Jill1228]

Originally Posted by epchick

Although this might be true a lot of the time, you'd be surprised how many children are born even though the mother has/had an IUD.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

My post was in reference to the allegation that the IUD works by "scraping," when it does not appear to at all.

As the Wikipedia article indicates, the Dalkon Shield was poorly designed and that was the cause of its malfunction, and not a flaw in how it actually worked.

The Shield didn't work with my mother...my younger brother is an IUD kid

If the IUD worked by scraping, who in the hell would use it? That would be hella painful

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

I think it is interesting that you think I sound frustrated and defensive out of all the posters in this thread.

"You sound frustrated" does not equal "Nobody in the entire thread sounds frustrated but you." That's not what I said.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

and christiangirl, despite the year's intense high school study, you betray a lack of comprehension of the biblical foundation and historical evolution of Roman Catholic tenets. You don't have to be Roman Catholic (at least I hope not, or I'm in trouble!) to comment, but attacking Roman Catholicism with the vehemence you do comes off as defensive. And dare I say - unchristian? What happened to they will know that we are Christians by our love?

To an extent, the bolded is true. I did not say I was an expert on the RCC, I was stating that I'm not as ignorant of the basic facets of the faith (including the "Catholic definition" of grace) as Irish assumed I was.

I am angry at this priest's actions. To see a person in the position to draw others to the faith instead choose to push them away by imposing such limitations is both wrong and unfair.

As far as the grace issue: I am of the opinion that grace, actual grace, is a gift from God extended to everyone. It has some limitations, but voting for a pro-life candidate is not one of them. That is a man-made imposition. So, if the term in question is something that one may only acquire via certain requirements that were set forth by religious authorities (and I admit that it is within a Church's right to do it even if I don't agree), then that should not be called "grace" because it's not. Using that particular word in any other context is to misuse it and I don't like the purposes for which it is being misused. That is ALL I said and I have already stated that this is my opinion on the matter and not an infallible fact to which the entire religion must be held. By no stretch of the imagination is that "attacking Roman Catholicism with vehemence." (Nor is it being "unchristian" IMO but I'll leave that one up to Jesus.)

[AGDee]

If it helps any, John Kerry was told he could not take communion in the RCC during the last Presidential election for the same reasons. This isn't shocking stuff to RCCs and Obama isn't singled out with this.

[DolphinChicaDDD]

Originally Posted by AGDee

If it helps any, John Kerry was told he could not take communion in the RCC during the last Presidential election for the same reasons. This isn't shocking stuff to RCCs and Obama isn't singled out with this.

I can kind of understand that. Kerry had a stance. Because he is a public person, and running for president, his views were known. Those views were in direct opposition to the RCC's stance, so he was denied communion.

In the case of denying communion to a parishioner because he voted for someone, I see that as an issue. Perhaps the parishioner placed his vote based solely on economic policy and environmental issues and let's say he sided with Obama. The parishioner may be against birth control, abortion, etc etc etc but didn't consider those issues when voting, and he sided with Obama for whatever reason. But the simple fact that he voted for one candidate makes him ineligible for communion? Seems silly to me.

Nevermind the fact that I'm sure all of McCain's stances don't match up with the RCC's ideas; the death penalty comes to mind. So did this priest want people to vote for no one since there is not going to be a candidate who agrees 100% with church teachings?

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DolphinChicaDDD

I can kind of understand that. Kerry had a stance. Because he is a public person, and running for president, his views were known. Those views were in direct opposition to the RCC's stance, so he was denied communion.

In the case of denying communion to a parishioner because he voted for someone, I see that as an issue. Perhaps the parishioner placed his vote based solely on economic policy and environmental issues and let's say he sided with Obama. The parishioner may be against birth control, abortion, etc etc etc but didn't consider those issues when voting, and he sided with Obama for whatever reason. But the simple fact that he voted for one candidate makes him ineligible for communion? Seems silly to me.

Nevermind the fact that I'm sure all of McCain's stances don't match up with the RCC's ideas; the death penalty comes to mind. So did this priest want people to vote for no one since there is not going to be a candidate who agrees 100% with church teachings?

The Church holds that the issue of life is to be held in higher regard than economic issues, so that would be the justification if the parishioner voted on economy (or something like that) rather than life. The Church hasn't ever swayed in that.

You are right that McCain didn't match up 100%. I don't know that any candidate ever has. That's why the Church pushes the development of a "Catholic conscience" and "Catholic identity." So far there has always been one candidate who is clearly more in line with Catholic teachings than another. And, like I said before, the Catholic Church is opposed to liberal application of the death penalty, but it is not an absolute like abortion. (That's a pretty complicated issue, and I wouldn't say that the Church is ok with the death penalty, just that it does recognize occasional justification for it. It does not recognize any justification for abortion.)

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

"You sound frustrated" does not equal "Nobody in the entire thread sounds frustrated but you." That's not what I said.



To an extent, the bolded is true. I did not say I was an expert on the RCC, I was stating that I'm not as ignorant of the basic facets of the faith (including the "Catholic definition" of grace) as Irish assumed I was.

I am angry at this priest's actions. To see a person in the position to draw others to the faith instead choose to push them away by imposing such limitations is both wrong and unfair.

As far as the grace issue: I am of the opinion that grace, actual grace, is a gift from God extended to everyone. It has some limitations, but voting for a pro-life candidate is not one of them. That is a man-made imposition. So, if the term in question is something that one may only acquire via certain requirements that were set forth by religious authorities (and I admit that it is within a Church's right to do it even if I don't agree), then that should not be called "grace" because it's not. Using that particular word in any other context is to misuse it and I don't like the purposes for which it is being misused. That is ALL I said and I have already stated that this is my opinion on the matter and not an infallible fact to which the entire religion must be held. By no stretch of the imagination is that "attacking Roman Catholicism with vehemence." (Nor is it being "unchristian" IMO but I'll leave that one up to Jesus.)

You are splitting semantic hairs, and the point which has been made over and over is that YOUR OPINION about a policy of the RC church isn't really germane to the discussion. You are narrowly defining "grace", which is certainly your right, but then criticizing the RC church because their definition is not yours. It's not about you - heck, I don't agree with the RC church, but I haven't inserted my opinion because it doesn't matter.

A Roman Catholic priest applied Roman Catholic principles to a Roman Catholic parish. His beliefs aren't mine, but he's not trying to make me (or anyone who isn't a parishioner) fall under his authority. The question is, were his actions justified (within the context of his postion and responsiblities - including his duties to warn his parishoners of endangering their immortal souls) ? Did they possibly break current tax law? As I asked before, how do his parishoners and higher up think of his actions? When it is all said and done, he answers to a higher authority. You will leave judgement of your actions up to Jesus, but will not extend the same courtesy to this priest.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

The question is, were his actions justified (within the context of his postion and responsiblities - including his duties to warn his parishoners of endangering their immortal souls) ? Did they possibly break current tax law? As I asked before, how do his parishoners and higher up think of his actions? When it is all said and done, he answers to a higher authority. You will leave judgement of your actions up to Jesus, but will not extend the same courtesy to this priest.

Like I said above, it is not "splitting semantic hairs" if I am being held to assertions that I never made. The claim is that I hold others to standards that I have injected my own standards into. Well, the two of you keep twisting my words out of context then trying to hold me to them. What is that supposed to be called?

No, I don't feel that they were justified at all and one reason is the one that DolphinChica stated (which, admittedly, is a scenario that came to mind long ago but I never got around to posing it in between explaining myself on every other issue). Some people (myself included) voted for Obama without supporting each and every one of his issues. Say a member of the Catholic church voted like that: Do they deserve to be denied Communion even though they are pro-life themselves? No, in my opinion, they don't. I don't like that action nor do I agree with the premise behind it (their not being in a "state of grace"). I'm not saying that the RCC should revamp its doctrine and re-evaluate what it puts emphasis on. I don't "demand" that this priest change his tactics. I'm just saying that I disapprove and THAT'S IT. Please, take it at face value. I don't have anything against either of you, but I don't like the way you've made all of this to be about how I can't stay on topic, how I'm demanding everyone to be on my wavelength when that's simply not true. If you felt that my answers weren't what you were looking for, you could've said that without claiming I am being "unchristian" and "unloving" (which can be taken as just as much of a judgement as you claim I have made). That's really all I've got to say on the matter, if my intentions aren't clear by now then they won't be tomorrow. Let us agree to disagree unless there is something else you would like me to know.
ETA: In reading that last bit again, it looks really sarcastic and I wanted to input that that's not how I meant it. I genuinely mean that, unless you really have something else to add, I'd like to just let it drop.

[SWTXBelle]

I don't have any trouble being judgemental about rhetoric - in fact, I am paid to do just that. I have pointed out your errors purely from a rhetorical standpoint - that whole "Judge not lest ye be judged" thing? As you undoubtly know, it refers to trying to judge someone's relationship with God - where they stand with Him. My pointing out flaws in logic, and yes, an inability to discuss the topic at hand without making it about you, you, you, is not theological at all. So let it drop - all you had to do was step back and realize that our point(I'm dragging you into this, irishpipes and other Roman Catholics!) is the fact that you are actually criticizing Roman Catholic doctrine (i.e. the idea that communion can be denied at the discretion of the priest for things YOU don't think should matter). There is no need for this to be a RC bashing thread.

That's all I'm sayin'. So ONE MORE TIME - does anyone have anything new to add about the reaction of the bishop or the congregation?

[dekeguy]

Seems to me that none of us are really fully qualified to pronounce with authority the exact meanings of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice regarding issues of faith and morals.

That being said let me share my thoughts on this matter.
The RC Church is hierarchial in structure. I'm not sure whether this priest had the authority to make the sweeping statement discussed in this thread.
If his Bishop, in his role as teacher to the faithful, had specifically required or authorized this position then the priest was just doing his job. If not, then it would appear that the priest erred by denying his flock their OBLIGATION to consider this matter within the internal forum (their conscience). Absent clear direction on faith and morals his role should be to raise the question and ask his people to consider whether they in good conscience could be properly disposed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. It is not for him to judge the consciences of the faithful, it is for him to make them think and consider.
When I was in school a wise old Jesuit Priest asked us, "When God gave you a brain, do you suppose He had in mind that you do something with it?" He went on to say that he doubted that God would be upset if you honestly followed your conscience in all your actions. Not for convenience, not for advantage, not for any purpose save for an honest considered decision of good conscience. The reason that Jesuit education is heavy on Theology and Philosophy is to provide a frame of knowledge and reference to help you with life's tough choices - you know, the ones YOU are responsible to make.
If one receives the Eucharist and is not properly disposed to receive it then this is sacrilege. A big time slap in the face to God. Not a good idea.

One should vote following one's conscience. If you think candidate X will be the better one for the job to which he/she aspires then go for it. If one honestly believes that candidate Y is the better choice then go for it.
Whether or not you agree with ALL of the candidate's positions and policies is not really the key question. How you act in light of your own conscience is the key question. I don't think God is going to ask what Candidate X did, I think He will ask, when confronted with a moral choice what did YOU do?

Now, as an addendum. I have discussed the abortion issue with two Cardinals and a raft of Jesuit Theologians. The RCs hold that human life is sacred. Abortion for convenience is never seen as a good and proper act. Termination with the intent to end the pregnancy is never seen as a good and proper act. HOWEVER, if a medical procedure is necessary to save life and the intention is save the life of the mother and if as a result of the procedure the child is lost then this is a tragic happening but it is a consequence of an act to save life, not to end it. The issue revolves around the intention. Procedure intended to save life with an unintended but inevitable consequence - morally acceptable. Procedure to intentionally end life - morally unacceptable. No, its not splitting hairs. Its a tough call but a clear standard to follow.

OK, those are my thoughts on the matter.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

"You sound frustrated" does not equal "Nobody in the entire thread sounds frustrated but you." That's not what I said.

Perhaps not, but I am the only one you singled out. Not that it matters.

Originally Posted by christiangirl

To an extent, the bolded is true. I did not say I was an expert on the RCC, I was stating that I'm not as ignorant of the basic facets of the faith (including the "Catholic definition" of grace) as Irish assumed I was.

Your posts showed a lack of any insight into Catholicism. You were obviously interjecting your own religious views, which a Catholic priest cannot be expected to follow.

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I am angry at this priest's actions. To see a person in the position to draw others to the faith instead choose to push them away by imposing such limitations is both wrong and unfair.

A priest's role is not necessarily to "draw others to the faith." Faith is not measured in numbers. If this priest filled the pews by misrepresenting Catholic views - by adopting an "anything goes" attitude, what would that accomplish? A big group of people WHO ARE NOT CATHOLICS. It would be WRONG and UNFAIR to lead them to believe that the Church does not have doctrine. The Catholic Church is an incredibly pro-choice institution. Its faithful are allowed to choose whatever they want to the point of jeopardizing their immortal souls. If a Catholic rejects the teachings of the Church, why would he or she care if Holy Communion is not permissable for them?

Originally Posted by christiangirl

As far as the grace issue: I am of the opinion that grace, actual grace, is a gift from God extended to everyone. It has some limitations, but voting for a pro-life candidate is not one of them. That is a man-made imposition. So, if the term in question is something that one may only acquire via certain requirements that were set forth by religious authorities (and I admit that it is within a Church's right to do it even if I don't agree), then that should not be called "grace" because it's not. Using that particular word in any other context is to misuse it and I don't like the purposes for which it is being misused. That is ALL I said and I have already stated that this is my opinion on the matter and not an infallible fact to which the entire religion must be held. By no stretch of the imagination is that "attacking Roman Catholicism with vehemence." (Nor is it being "unchristian" IMO but I'll leave that one up to Jesus.)

Again, as you yourself state, this is your opinion, your definition. This priest was articulating the CATHOLIC position on this, as should be expected. You, and everyone else on earth, are entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps instead of demanding that this priest "gets off his high horse", you should consider dismounting yourself. You are insinuating, no matter what you now backpeddle and say, that he apply elements of your faith in speaking with his own congregation. For example, in a previous post you reference a biblical definition of grace. An understanding of Catholicism would include the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Perhaps the priest at issue was reacting to the post-election data that about 50% of people who consider themselves Catholic voted for Obama. There was certainly a time when Catholics voted in a much more predictable fashion.

Perhaps you can redirect your anger toward this priest to gratitude that your candidate won.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

Perhaps not, but I am the only one you singled out. Not that it matters.

That's just the way I post--I noticed that others were way more amped, but they weren't speaking to me, you were. I only comment on what is relevant (i.e., who is talking to me). No big deal.

Your posts showed a lack of any insight into Catholicism. You were obviously interjecting your own religious views, which a Catholic priest cannot be expected to follow. I already said that a Church is perfectly within its right to make up their own doctrine. No, I don't agree, but so what? I don't have to and they don't have to care that I don't either.



A priest's role is not necessarily to "draw others to the faith." Aside from the fact that I only agree with this to an extent, ONCE AGAIN. I never said it was. I said that he is in a position where he could, which is NOT the same thing. Faith is not measured in numbers. If this priest filled the pews by misrepresenting Catholic views - by adopting an "anything goes" attitude, what would that accomplish? A big group of people WHO ARE NOT CATHOLICS. Yes, it would. It would be WRONG and UNFAIR to lead them to believe that the Church does not have doctrine. The Catholic Church is an incredibly pro-choice institution. Its faithful are allowed to choose whatever they want to the point of jeopardizing their immortal souls. If a Catholic rejects the teachings of the Church, why would he or she care if Holy Communion is not permissable for them? <---This sentence is a fair point.



Again, as you yourself state, this is your opinion, your definition. This priest was articulating the CATHOLIC position on this, as should be expected. You, and everyone else on earth, are entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps instead of demanding that this priest "gets off his high horse", you should consider dismounting yourself. I expressed what I felt he should do, but certainly did not "demand" him to do anything and ended the statement with JUST MY OPINION. You are twisting my words again. You are insinuating, no matter what you now backpeddle and say, that he apply elements of your faith in speaking with his own congregation. For example, in a previous post you reference a biblical definition of grace. An understanding of Catholicism would include the doctrine of sola scriptura. I understand that, which is why I said that it is my opinion (read: preference) as opposed to something the entire faith must follow. Didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you.

...