No communion for Obama supporters

[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?

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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?

Apparently, the majority of his congregation agrees with the letter. Also, here is a quote from the diocese:

Stephen Gajdosik, spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Charleston, told The News that calling parishioners who voted for a candidate who supports legalized abortions to penance is a question of how best to deepen a flock's relationship to God and a move left up to local priests. He said such a move is appropriate and in line with church teaching

.

Here is a link to the article:http://http://www.greenvilleonline.c...WS01/811130314

Based on the last part of the article, it doesn't sound like he is going to refuse communion to anyone- if they go up for communion then they will recieve it. But he does want his congregation to be in full communion with church teachings before they recieve communion. So maybe the letter wasn't so much a threat as it was an attempt to teach his congregation about the Church's stance and give ways to get back in full communion.

[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.

[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.

[agzg]

I never thought they'd just be sitting there. I understand the idea of confession, etc.

I just don't think I personally would feel comfortable confessing how I voted.

[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 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.

[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.)

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

Well, there we have it. I don't consider what I did to be criticizing, but I'm positive that word probably doesn't mean to me what it does to you. So, this shall be where we settle on opposite sides of the fence and no real harm done. Like I said, I really didn't mean to offend or "bash" anybody. I apologize for letting my temper surface and hope there's no hard feelings.

Originally Posted by dekeguy

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.

I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what the example means. Are you referencing a procedure meant to save the mother that resulted in the loss of the child? Or, in the midst of a procedure intended to save the mother, it is found that aborting the fetus is necessary to keep her alive? Because the former wouldn't technically be an "abortion"--just an accident, right?

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by ;1745858

I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what the example means. Are you referencing a procedure meant to save the mother that resulted in the loss of the child? Or, in the midst of a procedure intended to save the mother, it is found that aborting the fetus is necessary to keep her alive? Because the former wouldn't technically be an "abortion"--just an accident, right?

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

As I understand it (and remember I am not a Theologian) the key is the intention. If the intention is to save life [the mother] and incidentally the child is lost, even if the loss is inevitable, but the intention is not to destroy life then this would be morally acceptable. So, if governed by the proper intention both situations would be tragic but morally sound. Again I must apply the caveat that my opinion does not carry Theological teaching authority. Domine non sum dignus.

If there are any RC Theologians reading this please chime in and make sure my understanding of the issue is sound.
Many thanks,
Peter

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

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

As I understand it (and remember I am not a Theologian) the key is the intention. If the intention is to save life [the mother] and incidentally the child is lost, even if the loss is inevitable, but the intention is not to destroy life then this would be morally acceptable. So, if governed by the proper intention both situations would be tragic but morally sound. Again I must apply the caveat that my opinion does not carry Theological teaching authority. Domine non sum dignus.

If there are any RC Theologians reading this please chime in and make sure my understanding of the issue is sound.
Many thanks,
Peter

I'm not a theologian, however I do know a bit about Catholic NFP teachings. You are correct-btw, it is all about intent.

To give a real-life example- If a woman has an ectopic pregancy (where the fertilized egg has implanted in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus), then this is a life threatening condition. The way to save the woman's life is to remove the fallopian tube- however to remove it will kill the developing baby. But since the objective is to save the life NOT kill the baby, it is acceptable.

Another example would be amniocentisis. In a small percentage of cases, an amnio can lead to a miscarriage (spontanious abortion). The objective of the amnio IS NOT abortion- in fact most amnios are performed to help diagnose health conditions with the baby- some which can be corrected in utero.