 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Should Kerry Take Communion?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Risky Business Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:31 PM I've been hanging out in Massachusetts, where Sen. Kerry got his political start. People here have been mentioning the situation wherein Kerry, a Catholic, might be denied communion in a Catholic Church due to his pro-choice stance. I am interested in soliciting opinions from people and not in arguing, since this is an issue where I think people will be firmly entrenched, so what I'm after is: 1) Should Catholic Priests offer Sen. Kerry communion or not? 2) Should Sen. Kerry himself take communion in Church? Why does the Catholic Church define personhood as emanating fromt the moment of conception? Is this the same reason as the Baptist Church, which holds a similar opinion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Jim Dixon Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:50 PM You're asking whether Kerry should be excommunicated. (That's what the word means.) I don't know. Does the Catholic church ever excommmunicate anyone nowadays? Have they ever excommunicated anyone over the abortion issue? Who exactly has the authority to excommunicate people? (Bishops, I assume.) If one bishop, say, decides to excommunicate somebody, does the excommunication apply everywhere, or can the person still take communion in a different diocese? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:02 PM Some perspective:— Catholic author Morris West (The Shoes of the Fisherman, Summer of the Red Wolf, and many other excellent novels, not all of a religious nature), wrote in his spiritual memoir, A View from the Ridge about his religious upbringing and his eventual disenchantment with the church, and asks such questions as "How can individual values coexist with inflexible institutions?" and "Why are church hierarchies unlike Jesus?" Someone once asked him about when he left the church. He responded, "I didn't leave the church. The church left me." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Megan L Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:07 PM no theologian but Jesus said do this in rememberance of me, he did not say do this only if ( supply your on list of prohibitions) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: artbrooks Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:10 PM Story here. As a non-Catholic, I really can't comment on the theology of it. I guess it would be between him and his priest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Charley Noble Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:10 PM Religious practices should not be an issue in a political campaign, with the possible exception of when that religion's ritual includes human sacrifice. However, saying that I fully expect an ungodly portion of the electorate will be suckered into this non-issue. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Strick Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:17 PM Non-issue is right, it shouldn't affect the politics. Beyond that, I'm not qualified to instruct another church on their litergy. He's welcome over at our place though, and always has been. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Rapparee Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:17 PM 'Tain't ex cathedra, so it ain't official infallible Church doctrine. It's just the Curia trying to regain some of the authority it lost to Vatican II. The 71 page document refers to other practices as well -- and it originally excluded liturgical dancing until someone wised up and realized that the Pope had enjoyed liturgical dancing during a trip to Africa. I wouldn't worry about it. The Catholics in the US, by and large, aren't going to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:18 PM Significant is that Kerry has said, "I fully intend to practice my religion as separate from what I do with respect to my public life." Can George W. Bush say the same? I don't think so. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Rapparee Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:21 PM That's pretty much what John Kennedy said, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:23 PM These questions should be left between Kerry and his priest. I don't practice a religion, and am an ardent opponent of the often homogeneous overarching influence of most organized religions. I resent (am insulted by!) religion being used as the justification for war, for acts of violence, and for laws that restrict others' rights. At the same time, I also resent the speculation about what goes on between a person and their church. To say that I don't practice a religion is NOT the same as saying I have no thoughts or practices of spirituality. I can think of no context in which I should have to explain, describe, or defend my personal spiritual believes or practices. On that basis, I have to give the same courtesy to any of the candidates. Now if Dubya is so stupid as to tell Woodward and the world that he consulted his god and decided to go to war because of that, then that god needs to be examined. And I wonder what the conversation is like around the extended Bush family dinner table this week: George H. W. Bush: "I heard your speech on tv this week. The one about Iraq." George Dubya: "Yeah, I put the shame on them, how could they ask me to abandon the Iraqi people before everything is up and that nation is restored." George H. W. Bush: "Er, Yes. You said 'this time we're not going to cut and run. . .'" George Dubya: "Ooops, Dad. Forgot that was you. . ." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: dianavan Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:26 PM My dad was a "proud member of the working class" and a died in the wool, democrat. He did not vote for Kennedy because he thought a Catholic would be taking orders from the Pope. He also had a grade eight education but that was then and this is now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Strick Date: 23 Apr 04 - 05:26 PM "I fully intend to practice my religion as separate from what I do with respect to my public life." With respect, as you seem to mean it, that is to not practice your religion at all. It's one thing to recognize your public duties may conflict with your faith and do your duty. It's another thing to adopt a practice inconsistent with your belief and push it as a public duty. "Can George W. Bush say the same? I don't think so." Probably right, Don. But that's a positive statement for most of us. Regardless, Kerry's issue with the Church shouldn't be an issue unless you feel strongly as a Catholic in which case you probably weren't going to vote for Kerry anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 23 Apr 04 - 09:31 PM If I believe Catholicism is the true religion, should I (as president) attempt to deny citizenship to non-Catholics? it would be for the good of their souls; I'd just be trying to help. Anything wrong with that? Should a Jewish president forbid pork? It probably wouldn't work, but he would be virtuous for trying. No? What Kennedy was saying is that he wouldn't' inflict his religious beliefs on the nation. Ethical beliefs, unlike religious beliefs, are pretty much common to all religions and cultures; basically, don't murder, steal, or commit incest. You can argue about definitions, of course - it's often ok to kill or steal from someone outside the tribe - but those are the basic human laws. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: GUEST Date: 23 Apr 04 - 10:19 PM Sometimes it boggles the mind how anti-Catholic the Catholic cardinals are, and how readily everyone accepts this argument, while completely ignoring women's views. I mean, considering this is a subject that effects women, not men, and all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Strick Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:31 PM "Should a Jewish president forbid pork? It probably wouldn't work, but he would be virtuous for trying. No?" Whether he should forbid it for others is not the question. What seems to be the question is, if he himself eats pork, could he really be considered an observant Orthodox Jew? Not trying to offend anyone, but let's be sure we understand what we're talking about here. I don't see the Church asking Kerry to force anyone outside the Church to do anything or violate the laws of the land, only be consistent for himself with what their church leader defines as a core value. I will also repeat that I can't consider this a major political issue. It's between him and his church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:40 PM The President is sworn, above all else to defend the Constitution; and that includes implicitly if no explciitly keeping all churches seperate from state affairs. That is the oath of office as presently interpreted; he wouldn't be running if he was unwilling to take it. We worked through our misgivings over this issue with the Catholic Church in 1960, remember? A Senator from Massachusetts who had a record commanding small armored boats running for (and gaining) the Presidency despite his restricitve faith? Except they shot him.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Strick Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:43 PM "armored boats" Plywood boats, Amos, they were plywood. How is this question tied to whether a Catholic should be president? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: DougR Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:46 PM Yes. The abortion question should not be a political one, but it has become one. He should be allowed to take communion, I think, if he wishes to have it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Amos Date: 23 Apr 04 - 11:47 PM Sorry -- I suppose they were both fast, armed boats. And "Should a Catholic be President" is a non-issue for the reasons I already satted, IMNSHO. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Strick Date: 24 Apr 04 - 12:03 AM This JFK makes a lot of comparisons between himself and the other one. I wouldn't be surprised if he voluteered for Riverine duty to get on such a boat, Amos. I wouldn't say that was a bad thing, though he might want to be careful not to take the parallels too far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 04 - 01:36 AM High risk, high honor. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: GUEST Date: 24 Apr 04 - 08:06 AM "The" Catholic church has not come out and said it will no longer give communion to politicians who are pro-choice. One Catholic cardinal, obviously a right wing cardinal, decided to inject his own brand of religious politics into the American presidential campaign. That is all this is about. The Catholic church gives communion to all Catholics, good and bad. The cardinal shooting off his mouth is obviously an idiot, and goes against everything the church stands for, IMO. If priests stopped giving communion to Catholics who don't adhere to every Catholic teaching, they wouldn't have much business on Sundays. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Strick Date: 24 Apr 04 - 10:44 AM GUEST, I think this is what set of this conversation this time: Vatican Cracks Down on Liturgical Abuses Down a ways you'll find this: "It said anyone conscious of being in grave sin shouldn't receive Communion without going to confession - a regulation that prompted questions about whether priests should deny Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry Communion because of his support for abortion rights." How anyone knows what John Kerry confesses to is beyond me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Risky Business Date: 24 Apr 04 - 11:21 AM I appreciate the responses so far. The issue is on the front page of the Boston Globe today. We've veered a bit from what I wanted to find out: I'd conclude by what I'm reading that the vast majority of folks think that Kerry should not be refused participation in Catholic communion, nor should he shirk it because of his beliefs. I still don't know why the Catholic church got involved on the issue and what it's biblical justification is (that life begins at conception). I still don't know why Southern Baptists have a similar view, but other Christian faiths, such as Lutheran, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Unitarian, Episcopal, justify a different belief. Even though this is a BS thread, there is at least one musical tie-in: Monty Python's song "Every Sperm is Sacred". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: GUEST Date: 24 Apr 04 - 11:30 AM Risky Business, I think the difficulty you are having understanding this, is in assuming that there is mention of when life begins in the bible. There isn't. The idea of life beginning at conception has nothing to do with religion or science, but with control over women's reproductive rights, which is political. Church doctrine isn't usually based upon the sacred texts of a religion in the US, unless it is by orthodox sects. I think if you are truly interested in this issue (abortion), you should do some research into the history of legal proscriptions against it. I think you will find it to be very recent, in historical means of measuring a tradition/proscription. The anti-abortion crusade is rooted in religious attempts to control human sexuality for moral reasons, and for economic reasons. Marriage is another issue rooted in these same attempts to define and limit what is religiously and morally acceptable sexual contact between adults, and what isn't. Again, marriage laws are very recent in historical terms. Barely a couple hundred years old in Europe and British North America. So what do you suppose everyone was doing for all those millenia before the modern era, when all this began to be laid out in church and secular law, hmmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: MickyMan Date: 24 Apr 04 - 11:44 AM For the record on the "small armed boat" thing. I was reading a very informative article in Atlantic magazine about Kerry's Vietnam tour of duty. He freely admits that he was partly attracted to the river patrol boats because of their similarity to the PT boats of his hero ... the earlier JFK. Give the guy credit for pschychological awareness. If you ask me he picked a decent hero to emulate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Strick Date: 24 Apr 04 - 11:58 AM I was more teasing Amos than anything else. Besides, it was well known that the agressive use of PT boats made of nothing more than plywood against much larger, better armoured and better armed ships was one of the most dangerous jobs in WWII. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 04 - 12:44 PM Personally, I think the Pope and his craven sycophants have no business messing about with other people's reproductive systems. It is autocratic, dictatorial, narrowminded and in some ways the very opposite of Christian. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: GUEST,Desdemona Date: 24 Apr 04 - 03:04 PM Quite frankly, it seems to me taht the Catholic Church has waaaaay bigger problems than *this* with which to keep itself occupied, and since the separation of Church & State is (theoretically, at least!) one of the basic principles of the American government, this should be a non-issue in terms of politics. That said, we've got a semi-literate fundamentalist Christian in the White House, continually invoking *his* God & tossing about terms like "Crusades" whilst waging war in the Middle East; sadly, I don't expect this sort of thing to get better any time soon, even if someone were to read GW the Constitution aloud, explaining all the big words as they went along... D. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Don Firth Date: 24 Apr 04 - 04:47 PM Parable. A man living in a small town was quite the heller. Partied it up, drank a lot, and caroused with women of questionable virtue. He was shunned by most of the nice people in the town. One afternoon, following a miserable morning whose main feature was a particularly bad, twenty mega-ton hangover, he decided that this was no way to live. He was going to clean up his act and try to become a decent human being and an asset to the community.Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Risky Business Date: 24 Apr 04 - 05:22 PM Hi There Again: And Again: If the definition of life beginning at conception is not in the bible, as GUEST said, then what are the theological underpinnings of the Catholic Church in this regard, and are they the same as the Southern Baptists. I'm curious as to their point of view, and why they can't accept Roe V. Wade. And as far as PT boats go, supposedly someone asked JFK (the one who was President) what he did that made him such a hero, and he answered, "The Japanese sank my boat!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: GUEST Date: 24 Apr 04 - 05:35 PM I think the fucker should have a sex change and become a nun... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Peace Date: 24 Apr 04 - 06:40 PM GUEST: Why exactly should JFK have had a sex change and become a nun? If you meant the Pope, then don't you mean 'sects change'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Hrothgar Date: 24 Apr 04 - 08:18 PM "marriage laws are very recent in historical terms. Barely a couple hundred years old in Europe and British North America." They might be new in secular terms. In religious or canon law they go back a long way. Henry VIII had his problems nearly five centuries ago. Don't even think about Ruth and Boaz. Kerry's problem appears to be that facing most Catholics - those in Rome want power over the individual conscience. If I understand my history fully, this was one of Luther's complaints. I would have to say that the current church hierarchy have more justfication for their actions than those of the 15th and 16th centuries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Cruiser Date: 24 Apr 04 - 08:25 PM Kerry should take Command, forget Communion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Cruiser Date: 24 Apr 04 - 08:30 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Strick Date: 24 Apr 04 - 11:31 PM Kerry 2 - Pope 0 Kerry Takes Communion After Vatican Edict |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: dianavan Date: 25 Apr 04 - 12:37 AM Desdemona got it right. Is that one more for Kerry? ...or is it for Desdemona? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Mickey191 Date: 25 Apr 04 - 01:21 AM I wish there was a loving & accepting Catholic Church in every community, such as the Paulist Center. I've known Catholics who have been refused Communion because they were divorced. We all know of certain people who were granted Church anulments because of some supposed impediment at the time of their marriage. They're up there at the communion rail. I've often wondered how much do those anulments cost? I think the Vatican just wants 4 more years of the Bush Baby. It doesn't have to issue a Papal Bull to turn a significant number of voters away from Kerry. They are turning already. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Apr 04 - 01:50 AM I guess I'd call myself a pro-choice, pro-life, anti-abortion Catholic. I think I'd agree with most Catholics that abortion is not a good thing, and I think I might even go so far as to say that being opposed to abortion is part of being Catholic. Still, I can't buy the idea of attempting to eliminate abortion by passing criminal laws against it. I'd much prefer to see unwanted pregnancies eliminated by birth control - but of course, Rome has taken a stand against that, too. I suppose it's standard conservative thinking that criminal sanctions are the best way to control wrongdoing - so if abortion is wrong, we should pass a law against it and put people in prison if they break the law. It's that simple - all the talk show hosts say it's so. The current administration in the Vatican is conservative and seems to have bought into talk-show mentality, so they figure abortion should be illegal. Mind you, people who oppose abortion don't see it as a religious issue, like Jews or Moslems eating pork. They see it as a moral issue, something that is either right or wrong for everyone, not just for adherants to a particular religious code. If politicians say they are "personally opposed to abortion" but cannot allow their religion to interfere with their government position, that's evading the issue. Many anti-abortion people equate abortion with murder - and most people would readily agree that murder is universally wrong, not just a religious prohibition. I can't bring myself to equate abortion with murder, especially in the early stages of pregnancy - but I do believe that it brings about the loss of a life or a potential life, and that, to me, is wrong. I will also agree that at times women may have valid reasons for terminating her pregnancy - but the loss of her child will still be a cause for grief for me. I suppose you could argue the issue on when life begins, but it's not really a discussion that satisfies me. I think the question of when life begins is a philosophical one, not a scientific matter. There are two logical moments that can most reasonably be defined at the beginning of life: the moment of conception, and the moment of birth. It's hard to define birth as a momentary thing - it's more of an ongoing process. Conception, on the other hand, does happen more-or-less in a moment; but the immediate result really doesn't seem to have the essence of whatever it is that makes us human. Of course, then you get into another philosophical question: why should we value life at all, and what's so bad about killing anyhow? Many people who oppose abortion are very self-righteous about their "right" to kill criminals and military opponents. So, maybe we'd better not get off on that question. Once upon a time, I interviewed a doctor who was medical director of a unit of Planned Parenthood. After I finished my business, I asked if I could ask some of my personal questions about abortion, and he was very happy to talk with me. He said he performed about three or four abortions a year. He said abortion is never a cause for celebration, and that doctors don't like doing abortions. Sometimes, he was appalled by the reasons women gave for wanting abortions, or by women who had one abortion after another. Still, he found that most women had thought the matter over carefully, and had chosen abortion because they saw no reasonable alternative. Planned Parenthood tries hard to deal with the grief and the negative aspects of abortion - but it's still usually a very sad event. Then there's another issue - even if you believe abortion is murder, will legislation stop it? I think that a criminal law is practically unenforceable if a large minority in a community (or nation) disagrees with it. We learned that lesson with Prohibition, and we learned it with abortion before Rowe v. Wade. If we enact a law the people won't support, all we do is create a criminal subculture that will continue doing what they've always done, without any legal or safety control. It's an uncomfortable time to be a liberal in the Catholic Church. Most American and European Catholic priests are liberal or at least moderate, but the Big Guys in Rome are primarily conservative; and there is a very strong and vocal conservative minority among the laity. These people take the term "pro-choice" and automatically change it to "pro-abortion" - even for people like me who oppose both abortion and criminal prohibition of abortion. On the other hand, they very religiously call themselves "pro-life" even though they are vey obviously "anti-abortion." They've taken out full-page newspaper ads labeling various Catholic politicians "pro-abortion" without even giving substantiating information - and then they condemn these politicians for attending Mass and receiving Communion. The Mass and Communion are a very sacred part of my religious belief, and I hate to see them made into a political football. I think THAT's appalling. Another thing that really bugs me is that in the United States, the right-wing interests have taken ownership of the "pro-life" movement, making it impossible for people to effectively oppose abortion without buying into the the entire right-wing agenda. I can't bring myself to support Bush's Iraq fiasco, his destruction of environmental programs, his support of capital punishment, or his failure to support social and anti-poverty programs. I do wish John Kerry would say something that indicates at least some opposition to abortion. I thought Bill Clinton was quite eloquent when he said abortion should be "safe, legal, and RARE." I wish Kerry would at least buy into a position like that. I think it's worthwhile for us all to look at this issue from all perspectives. It's not just a religious issue, and those who oppose abortion certainly have many valid reasons for calling it wrong. It may well be the only alternative for certain women in certain situations, but it is never a decision to be made lightly. The whole thing is a very difficult issue. But as for receiving Communion, I certainly hope that Kerry continues to do it, and that priests don't turn him away. I'm sure it won't be hard for him to find priests who will welcome him to Mass - but I think he would be wise to avoid making an issue of it, and he should avoid attending Mass in a church where he's likely to be turned away. Catholics and non-Catholics sometimes tell me that if I think the way I do, I should find myself another church.* I don't buy that. The Catholic Church is MY church, as much mine as it is the Pope's. I don't care to let the right-wingers take over my church, and I'll keep fighting to keep it open to everyone. -Joe Offer- *I have never heard a priest or bishop suggest I should leave - it's just right-wing extremists who don't think I'm qualified to be Catholic, along with outsiders who view the entire Catholic Church as monolitically right-wing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: GUEST,Desdemona Date: 25 Apr 04 - 07:27 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: GUEST Date: 25 Apr 04 - 11:30 AM Hrothgar, it is true that the religious institution of marriage goes back farther than the civil institution of marriage. But, just as the example you cited, the institution of marriage prior to a couple hundred years back, was one of the aristocracy, not the common folk. All societies have *traditions* of recognizing a couple coming together to create a household that goes back to ancient times, but the institution of marriage as it is known in the West was, until modern times, an institution of the aristocracy. As to the sacraments themselves, they are the rituals that hold Catholics together as a community, because each of the seven sacraments celebrates an aspect of human life which is defined as sacred to the church community. That is why it SHOULD be a big deal and RARE to get an annulment, but if you are an influential and powerful man in the church community, a Kennedy say, it is easy pickings to get an annulment, and deny your previous wife and children ever lived with you in the supposed sanctity of marriage. I see this issue as no different really. There are priests who will refuse Kerry, and priests that won't. But I don't think Kerry will be attending a church anytime soon, where he would be denied communion. Unless he thinks he could get some political mileage out of it, of course. I too was raised Catholic, and I do love many aspects of the Catholic community I feel myself to be part of through family, colleagues, and friends. But it is just this sort of shit that caused me to jettison the church from my life at a very young age, and never look back. Catholic Worker and Liberation Theology types have been persecuted, ostracized, and excommunicated by both current and past right wing, fascist cardinals and popes, and I want no part of them, or their church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Apr 04 - 11:45 AM Man, I have just GOT to start another weiner dog thread, inspired bu this one... :-) I mean, this is SO important! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Amos Date: 25 Apr 04 - 11:55 AM Those weiner dogs, now -- do they run around chasing their tails in circles? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Apr 04 - 12:05 PM Yeah, sometimes they do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Jim Dixon Date: 25 Apr 04 - 03:54 PM Thanks, Joe Offer, for your intelligent and sensitive comments. I had a brief conversation yesterday with a friend who seems familiar with Catholic theology and practice, and he told me emphatically that being refused communion is NOT the same thing as being excommunicated. We didn't have time to discuss this at length, so I am still unclear on what the difference is. I thought I was safe on etymological grounds-that the root "communi" in "excommunicate" meant "communion"-but my friend said it means "community." So being excommunicated means being "thrown out of the community." I still don't know what that means in practical terms. By the way, just so you don't think I was speaking totally out of my hat: my first wife was formally excommunicated from the small fundamentalist Lutheran sect that she was brought up in, because she told her pastor she didn't believe in something that they considered fundamental. It might have been the inerrancy of the Bible. (I had never been a member of that church, so there was no question of excommunicating me, although she and I believed mostly the same things.) I think that's how "excommunication" was explained to me at the time: that she wouldn't be allowed to take communion. I know that church had a strict rule that only members of that sect could take communion. The church was small enough that the pastor personally knew every member. Visitors from other parishes had to bring a letter from their home church stating that they were members in good standing, and had to meet with the local pastor privately before the service, if they wanted to receive communion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: Peace Date: 25 Apr 04 - 04:52 PM Communion is taken when the receiver is not living with an unresolved grave sin. For example, if I divorce, that is not of itself a grave sin. If I remarry, that is, because in the eyes of the church I will have committed bigamy. Subsequently, I will be disallowed communion ever again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Apr 04 - 05:07 PM As Joe says, there are some times when trying to use the law to determine what happens just doesn't work, and ends up making things worse. A top priority for anyone who thinks that a society has a duty to protect vulnerable human beings - either mothers or babies - is to find ways of ensuring that women who are pregnant never feel impelled to resort to abortion when it is not their free choice, because they feel they have no choice but to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Kerry Take Communion? From: GUEST Date: 25 Apr 04 - 06:48 PM You know, it is pretty common knowledge among Catholic types that John Kerry isn't exactly the world's best Catholic. He misspoke recently, and referred to the main architect of Vatican II reforms of the church, Pope John XXII, as Pope Pius XXIII. Some would say it was a bit of a freudian slip, others say, that Kerry is such a bad Catholic he really doesn't know: a) there was no Pius XXII, and; b) he had bugger all to do with Vatican II. Next, I threw out the line above about if you were an important enough man in the church, you could get your marriage annuled. The name I threw out was Kennedy. Apparently Mudcat is a predominantly Protestant derived chat forum. Don't any of you know about Kerry's very controversial relationship with the church, especially the more enlightened Catholic women of the church? No, eh? Well, heads up people. US Sen. John Kerry and US Rep. Joseph Kennedy, both sought and received annulments of their first marriages, and their cases bear striking similarities. Both men's ex-wives are not Catholic and both women opposed the annulments, calling the process hypocritical. Both men had been married for years, and had children as a result of the marriage. Now then, the Church teaches that annulments do not invalidate the legitimacy of children and only recognizes that the couple was incapable of validly performing the sacrament of marriage. Which, when you go through the church wedding the first time, and are recognized by your Catholic community as living within the sanctity of that union for years, born children, etc etc it would seem pretty iron clad that at the time of your first marriage, you were not only capable of validly performing the sacrament, but did. Hence, the controversy. It royally pisses off a whole lot of Catholic women, and non-Catholic women married to Catholic men, that this sort of thing could actually happen in this day and age. Now, why would John Kerry and Joe Kennedy seek annulments? Because their second wives ARE Catholic, and want a Catholic wedding, children of the marriage baptised Catholic, etc etc. Hypocritical? You bet. In my view, that pretty much makes those guys scum on a personal level, in addition to being hypocrites. And their lovely second wives too. If you are a powerful male Irish Catholic politician, especially one from Massachusetts, you can pretty much have your attorney write up the annulment, mail it to the archidiocese, and have the sucker rubber stamped. And what rights do your first wife have in this process? Need you ask? Women don't have such rights in the Catholic church, period. Joe Kennedy's ex was so appalled and angry about it, she wrote a book and began a movement to bring attention to this horrendous, medieval practice. But hey--Mrs. Heinz-Kerry is a happy camper! Now, to clear up this excommunication thing. The short, simple answer to what being excommunicated from the Catholic church means: it means you are no longer able to receive communion, but that is meant to mean the benefits of the Catholic community, not all of the sacraments of the Catholic church, because even if you are excommunicated, you are still considered to be Catholic because the efficacy of your baptism can't ever be overturned by any Catholic authority. An excommunicate is considered an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. So, in the practical, every day sense of Catholic community, what that means is you cannot be administered any of the sacraments of the church until you redeem yourself. So, you can't attend mass, or receive any of the sacraments. So excommunication doesn't deprive just of communion, but of all the other sacraments as well. Catholics view the seven sacraments to be the ritualized, outward ceremonies that represent our inward grace and sanctification in christ. The seven sacraments are: baptism, confirmation, communion, matrimony, penance, extreme unction, and holy orders. For those of you who are confused by those terms, the roughly work out to mean: penance = confession; extreme unction = last rites; holy orders = the ritual of becoming a priest, nun, etc on up the hierarchy. So, the question of whether Kerry should receive communion because of his publicly stated belief on abortion, isn't really legitmate and is a bit of a non-starter, as they say. On the other hand, the fact that he had his first marriage annuled in order to remarry in the church could conceivably hurt him both with Catholics and with women, in the general election, if someone decides to make an issue of it. My guess is, since Rove hasn't used it yet, is that it is in Rove's October arsenal. |
