No communion for Obama supporters

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by 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.

Tee-hee. I love irony.

That being said, I think intelligent, educated people can discuss Roman Catholic doctrine and practice with a fair amount of authority if they are educated, as obviously you are, in the same. Any questions could certainly be given to a true authority - i.e. a bishop or priest in the RC Church.

eta - although even they (priests, bishops, cardinals) can disagree as to some "exact meanings", doctrine and practice.

[GeekyPenguin]

What I think it is interesting about this discussion as a whole is that all these non-Catholics and ex-Catholics are assuming this means everyone in the Congregation who voted for Obama is just going to stay in the pews on Sundays and not take Communion. I assume this means you think that everyone who has premarital sex, uses contraceptives, is gay and not abstinent, etc., will all also sit in the pews and not take Communion. It should be pretty speedy for the priest to dole it out, what with the 10 people going up.

There was a lot of talk about Faithful Citizenship up here during the election, and I think after a reading of that, a lot of Catholics felt better about voting for Obama than they did for McCain. So be it. It's ultimately an individual choice.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

What I think it is interesting about this discussion as a whole is that all these non-Catholics and ex-Catholics are assuming this means everyone in the Congregation who voted for Obama is just going to stay in the pews on Sundays and not take Communion.

Not all of us non-Catholics have been assuming this.

Originally Posted by dekeguy

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.

The principle of double effect, basically? (With a nod of the head to Thomas Aquinas.)

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The principle of double effect, basically? (With a nod of the head to Thomas Aquinas.)

==============

Has a bit more to do with specific intent, unintended consequences and, inter alia, a nod to St Thomas Aquinas, OP (yes I know where the hand grenade is but its his moral thought process to which I refer rather than his obsolete understanding of quickening). Then of course one should consider St Thomas More (the role of Mens Rea in legal and moral decisions). Lots more but don't let me get too pedantic.

[aephi alum]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

What I think it is interesting about this discussion as a whole is that all these non-Catholics and ex-Catholics are assuming this means everyone in the Congregation who voted for Obama is just going to stay in the pews on Sundays and not take Communion. I assume this means you think that everyone who has premarital sex, uses contraceptives, is gay and not abstinent, etc., will all also sit in the pews and not take Communion. It should be pretty speedy for the priest to dole it out, what with the 10 people going up.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Not all of us non-Catholics have been assuming this.

Nor have all of the ex-Catholics.

It's worth noting that, while all Catholics must attend Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation (or attend a vigil Mass the night before), Catholics are not obligated to receive communion every week. Many do - it is a sacrament, after all. But sometimes, people opt out for one reason or another. The reason could be anything from "I just had an abortion and the Church considers that murder, so I need to seek reconciliation first" to "I ate less than an hour ago". And asking someone "Why didn't you take Communion today?" just isn't done.

Catholics who have had their first Communion are required to receive at least once per year. This must happen during the Lent or Easter seasons. This covers a span of about three months, so there are plenty of opportunities to receive (and to go to confession first, if need be).

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

Nor have all of the ex-Catholics.

Catholics who have had their first Communion are required to receive at least once per year. This must happen during the Lent or Easter seasons. This covers a span of about three months, so there are plenty of opportunities to receive (and to go to confession first, if need be).

======================

The once a year minimum used to be called "Easter Duties". That was a rule intended to keep the faithful close to the sacraments and the practice of one's religeon. That ceased to be a mandatory requirement years ago as it was considered mildly absurd to FORCE people to partake in sacraments which are designed to strengther one's connection to God. Sort of like holding a gun to your head and saying be holy or I'll blow your head off.
For a long time it has been a recommended act of piety without anyone cracking the whip to enforce this.

[aephi alum]

When did that happen? It was a requirement back when I was Catholic, but then again, it's coming up on ten years since I converted to Judaism. I remember announcements at Mass that said things like, "Remember that you are obligated to receive Communion at some time before or on Pentecost. Three more weeks to go!"

(I also remember announcements saying, "Please be sure to dress appropriately for Mass." The church I attended as a child had no air conditioning in the building, and the building could get stifling hot in summer. People would come to Mass in tank tops, shorts, and flip-flops. But I digress.)

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Tee-hee. I love irony.

==============
So do I, but in this case no irony was intended. I just wanted to point out that my thoughts were only opinions and not statements of "official policy".
==============

That being said, I think intelligent, educated people can discuss Roman Catholic doctrine and practice with a fair amount of authority.

==============
I'd like to think that we can discuss doctrine and practice based on what we understand to be received authority but that authority is really reserved to the "teaching magisterium" of the Church. (The Bishops acting collegially in agreement). The idea is that any one or even several bishops could get hold of the wrong end of the stick but all the bishops acting collegially would be guided by the Holy Spirit to make sure that they don't screw up. I could not claim "a fair amount of authority" at all. Domine, non sum dignus!
==============

Any questions could certainly be given to a true authority - i.e. a bishop or priest in the RC Church.

eta - although even they (priests, bishops, cardinals) can disagree as to some "exact meanings", doctrine and practice.

========
A priest would lack the authority to speak with authority beyond what his
Bishop had promulgated. The Bishop would hesitate to go beyond what the Magisterium had agreed. As the Bishop is the Teacher of his diosese he is morally responsible for his guidance to his people. And yes, there is often much discussion and disagreement as to exact meanings of doctrine and practice. That is why the Magisterium acts collegially invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit before making any pronouncements. (you can fool some of the people ... but you cant fool all of the people all the time, especially if they have the HS checking them out).

There is a bottom line to all of this. If we are people of faith we should remember that JC Himself gave us the blueprint. Remember what he said about the two greatest commandments:
Love the Lord your God;
and love your neighbor as yourself.

If one thinks that through to its conclusion and acts accordingly I would think we could not go far wrong.