|
14 Nov 08 - 08:01 AM (#2493618) Subject: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: SINSULL http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705755/ Does this mean that Catholics can not vote for a candidate who supports anything the Catholic Church bans without endangering their faith? No gays? No divorced candidates? |
|
14 Nov 08 - 08:06 AM (#2493621) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Paul Burke He should shut up and get back to his natural role of buggering altar boys. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 08:18 AM (#2493633) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: artbrooks One priest at one parish in South Carolina, without approval of his bishop or anyone else, hardly establishes policy for the entire Catholic church. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 08:33 AM (#2493646) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Deckman This priest's action does NOT surprise me in the slightest. I've seen it coming for a long time. You only need to scratch a "deeply religious" person a little, and you'll see that their "faith" gives them the power to play god. No surprise there. CHEERS, Bob(deckman)Nelson |
|
14 Nov 08 - 08:39 AM (#2493648) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Rapparee Since he is, in effect, telling people how to vote the IRS could take a long, hard look at him. So should his Bishop. Man's a damned fool. The Middle Ages ended two or three years back. If my priest did this I'd walk out of Church. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 08:48 AM (#2493661) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: SINSULL "One priest at one parish in South Carolina, without approval of his bishop or anyone else, hardly establishes policy for the entire Catholic church." I agree, Art. But his bishop needs to speak up fast and clearly re: the official church stance. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 08:54 AM (#2493669) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Rapparee Problem is, the Bishop in Omaha started this stuff a few years back and some members of the Council of Bishops agree with it. This is the kind of thing that would have kept JFK from being elected and gives 99% of the American Catholics a bad name. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 09:00 AM (#2493673) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: CarolC Looks like a lot of the bishops agree with him. From the article... "During the 2008 presidential campaign, many bishops spoke out on abortion more boldly than four years earlier, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back." |
|
14 Nov 08 - 09:31 AM (#2493703) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Rapparee Well, the churches pay taxes in other countries...and it looks like they might be rendering unto Caesar right soon now.... |
|
14 Nov 08 - 09:33 AM (#2493705) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Amos It means that despicable assholery is like cockroaches--even nuclear explosions don't wipe it out. A |
|
14 Nov 08 - 09:37 AM (#2493709) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: EBarnacle The question is whether this is considered speech or political advocacy. Inasmuch as Catholics seem to have gone strongly for Obama, I would say this is an illustration of the growing divide between the clergy and parishoners. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 09:43 AM (#2493712) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: MarkS Isn't there a case to be made that if you want to enjoy the benefits of being a member of the team, you need to abide by the rules set down by the coaches? |
|
14 Nov 08 - 09:46 AM (#2493718) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Arkie Obama has not supported abortion. He addressed this issue several times. He recognizes that it is a moral issue and has stated a world with less abortions is a better choice. However, he has not supported legislation that would force an unbending moral law on every citizen. There are many Christians who agree with that position. The prophets of the Old Testament and the New Testament taught that God is honored when those who want a relationship with Him make moral choices out of free will rather than because they are forced to do so. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 09:53 AM (#2493725) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: wysiwyg Now, look, folks... You can't advocate American Catholics breaking away from Rome in one thread and be really surpised when they do just because one priest's rebellion against authority goes the way you don't want them to go. Either you want them charting a course themselves, and let them learn from their actions as we all do, or you want them in lockstep with their Bishops and Pope. The priest who did this is silly, but do you really think he has that much influence in his parish??? If you do, then IMO you don't know too many American Catholics real well. Start there. Get to know some people IRL, in areas that are not always comfortable to you. And listen to them with respect YOU want, before you reactively start telling them how wrong they are, and find out what they really, really care about. You will be surprised to learn that they care deeply about many of the same things YOU do. Practice what YOU preach. ~Susan ~S~ |
|
14 Nov 08 - 09:57 AM (#2493732) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Bill D In my interminable role as self-appointed logician, I will point out a couple of premises embedded in the priest's declaration. 1)The Catholic church should be the acknowledged authority on moral law in the world...for everyone. 2)Catholics are required to insert religion ahead of everything else, even in matters of choosing what is defined in the Constitution as a non-religious post. (I would assume that even if a candidate advocated nuclear bombing of Mecca, that would take 2nd place to his position on abortion.)(or maybe if the priest discovered enough evils in all candidates, Catholics would be prohibited from voting at all!) 3)He suggests that he is qualified to speak for the Catholic church on these matters. ahhhh...never mind....how about "if you don't like abortions, don't have one"? |
|
14 Nov 08 - 10:10 AM (#2493744) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: pdq "...Since he is, in effect, telling people how to vote the IRS could take a long, hard look at him..." Does that apply to Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Jeremiah Wright also? |
|
14 Nov 08 - 10:14 AM (#2493751) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: McGrath of Harlow The assumption that the most effective way of working to avoid abortions is to have laws making abortion illegal is that, an assumption. It is quite possible to argue that it is liable to be ineffective and damaging, and that a more promising approach is to work to get rid of the factors in society which make abortion seem the best choice, or even the only choice, for many women. Thus a candidate who is opposed to the introduction of laws restricting the availability of abortion may support other policies which would offer the hope of reducing abortions overall. And a candidate who is in favour of laws against abortions may support policies which would overall rend to increase abortions. In those circumstances, anyone voting on the basis of a moral opposition to abortion would choose to vote for the former candidate. And it seems likely that millions of Catholics in the USA took that view, and voted for Obama in perfectly good conscience. No priest or bishop has the right to override that conscience - and that is totally orthodox Catholic teaching. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 10:22 AM (#2493758) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Paul Burke Anyway, he probably wasn't speaking ex-cathedra. He has no means of knowing who voted for whom, as the ballot is secret, and asking them to refrain is appealing to their conscience- which if they've voted for Obama they've already squared anyway. I seem to recall Irish priests making much the same pronouncements in the past over the national struggle (long before it was "terrorist") with feck all effect. I remember dear departed Father Tom O'Shaughnessy (now in hell) telling my parents that while it wasn't his place to tell them who to vote for, the Labour candidate was a Protestant, and the Conservative a Good Catholic and a Knight of St. Columba. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 10:38 AM (#2493774) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: kendall Abortion. "Satan loves an unwanted child." |
|
14 Nov 08 - 10:47 AM (#2493788) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: McGrath of Harlow Yet again the assumption that all abortions involve children who are unwanted is just that, an assumption. There are numerous pressures in society that can force women into having abortions which they would rather not have. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 11:47 AM (#2493850) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Amos "Satan loves an unwanted child." Well, so does God, for that matter. A |
|
14 Nov 08 - 12:09 PM (#2493869) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: SINSULL Of course, that assumes you believe either one exists. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 12:35 PM (#2493899) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: kendall When an unwanted child knows it is unwanted, he/she is more apt to become anti social than a wanted one. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 12:35 PM (#2493900) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Riginslinger And if you don't, this entire discussion seems kind of stupid! |
|
14 Nov 08 - 01:15 PM (#2493930) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: SINSULL I started the thread questioning the validity of this priest's claims. Belief in the existence of the Catholic Church is the only belief required to discuss the issue. M |
|
14 Nov 08 - 01:16 PM (#2493933) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Bee-dubya-ell Why not just tell 'em that it's okay if they voted for Obama as long as they wear paper bags over their heads while squawking like chickens for fifteen minutes, followed by the ritual kissing of a black cat on the ass while standing under a ladder and throwing non-iodized salt over one's left shoulder? If people are gonna let their lives be led by a bunch of superstitious mumbo-jumbo, why not make it some real superstitious mumbo-jumbo? It's still bullshit, but it's lots more fun. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 01:36 PM (#2493952) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Wesley S And if you're aren't a member of the Catholic Church then it doesn't mean shit to a tree { to quote Paul Kantner }. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 02:11 PM (#2493983) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: PoppaGator If there were any real prospect of denying tax-exempt status to churches where the preacher strays into political territory, Catholic churches would be safer than most from censure. That's because Roman Catholicism is unique among world religions it its degree of unity, as dictated by its authoritarian hierarchy. All that would be necessary would be for the Pope, or the National Council of Bishops, to declare that any directive to support particular candidates or parties is against Church policy, inferring that any individual priest who commits such an offense is a "renegade," not representative of the Church itself (and not important enough, or authoritative enough, to cause the Church as a whole to lose its preferential status). On the other hand, many of the worst-offending preachers of political partisanship are independent pastors of their own "non-denominational" churches (or megachurches). They have no superior officers to cover for them the way a bishop, cardinal, or the Pope himself can claim higher authority than any individual Catholic priest. These guys, who are basically CEOs of their own highly profitable business enterprises and personal feifdoms, could probably be denied their tax-exampt status much more easily than any pastor (no matter how politically oriented, inflammatory, offensive, or whatever) who is affiliated with one of the larger and more-tightly-organized denominations. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 02:20 PM (#2493994) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: CarolC That raises an interesting question. If an individual Catholic church (or Baptist, or Presbytarian, etc.) engages in overtly political behavior, and the government decides it wants to withdraw the tax exempt status of that church (congregation), would the government have to go to the people at the top, or could they just slap the judgment on the individual congregation separately from the church heirarchy or the other individual congregations within the larger church? In other words, if one specific congregation engages in such behavior, does the government have to deal with the church as a whole, or can it deal with just that specific congregtion? |
|
14 Nov 08 - 02:29 PM (#2494005) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Wesley S Carol I'm guess that it would be tough to prove in court. To blame the entire denomination would be akin to racial profiling. Why blame everyone for the actions of a few. That's what the Muslims have to put up with anyway... |
|
14 Nov 08 - 02:47 PM (#2494023) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Art Thieme If a thousand people do a stupid thing or take an ignorant position, and ten people vote otherwise, the majority has STILL taken an ignorant stance. The 10 people are correct, but they lose the erection. Art! |
|
14 Nov 08 - 03:09 PM (#2494044) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Art Thieme Use Viagra. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 03:27 PM (#2494066) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: CarolC I was thinking more along the lines of if an individual congregation was doing it and they didn't lose their tax exempt status because it wasn't approved of or imposed on them by the church heirarchy. It looked like a poster up thread was suggesting that it might work that way. And I was wondering if an individual congregation could lose their tax exempt status for such behavior despite what the home office did or did not approve or impose. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 03:30 PM (#2494071) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: SINSULL It does, Wesley, if the church is assuming the power to control the votes of its congregation with the threat of withholding of communion, mortal sin or eternal damnation. New meds, Art? Can I have some? Mary |
|
14 Nov 08 - 03:49 PM (#2494086) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: PoppaGator I think that an individual congregation's legal culpability on the tax-exemption issue (if any such case were ever actually persued) would be very likely to depend upon its degree of independence. Some churches are unaffiliated, and would seem to be the most vulnerable to such prosecution for that reason. Individual congregations that are part of some larger entity would be better able to hide behind Mama's skirt, as it were. And, among religions doing business in the US, none is more tightly controlled by a hierarchy than Catholicism. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 03:51 PM (#2494088) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: olddude Sins I am catholic and that is truly not the way the church is suppose to act. I don't get any of the churchs that have to meddle into politics. You would think after the spanish inquisition and all the other wrongs that have occured in history from all denominations, that all churches would simply focus on the spirit and not on politics. I think our founding fathers really got it right with the separation of church and state. I hate to see a priest, minister, preacher whatever they are called trying to force their political views on anyone. It is bad for everyone, bad for the church and I think goes against God. I was always proud of my local priest who when asked said " my work is with God not Politicans". I guess some others in my church are not wise enough to follow that my friend. I think it is terrible and that priest should be ashamed just like many of the evangelicals who try to force others to vote the way they like because of their position. No religious figure as I see it has the right to ask people to give up their right to vote as their heart tells them. Their place is the business of God not Man as I see it. Dan |
|
14 Nov 08 - 04:19 PM (#2494102) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: SINSULL I am an ex-catholic, old due , and understand exactly what you are saying. I am hoping that the bishop, arch-bishop and powers that be squelch this. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 04:35 PM (#2494111) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: maire-aine I wore my O'Bama (like Mick, I can't help myself) button to my local Catholic church all through the campaign, and never go any flak. I was appalled by some of the anti-abortion propaganda that they printed in their bulletin, though. Maryanne |
|
14 Nov 08 - 04:36 PM (#2494112) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: olddude They higher ups in the church really should take that priest to task my friend. I would go to a different church before I would give up my right to vote as my heart believes. It is a shame that there are people like that. I think that is how we got into this mess in the first place. Religious leaders saying GW was a man of God and telling them how to vote. It is not right, they should just stick to matters of the soul and not politics |
|
14 Nov 08 - 04:38 PM (#2494116) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Wesley S There's a Baptist chruch near here that has a sirn outside proclaiming "Abortion is an Obama-Nation". I think what will really happen in this situation is that this priests parishioners will read his letter and ignore it. Or he will drive more of his folks away from his church and into another. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 04:54 PM (#2494127) Subject: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Genie [[Bill D: In my interminable role as self-appointed logician, I will point out a couple of premises embedded in the priest's declaration. 1)The Catholic church should be the acknowledged authority on moral law in the world...for everyone. 2)Catholics are required to insert religion ahead of everything else, even in matters of choosing what is defined in the Constitution as a non-religious post. (I would assume that even if a candidate advocated nuclear bombing of Mecca, that would take 2nd place to his position on abortion.)(or maybe if the priest discovered enough evils in all candidates, Catholics would be prohibited from voting at all!) 3) He suggests that he is qualified to speak for the Catholic church on these matters.]] Embedded in the priest's declaration is also the premise that: 4) If the Catholic Church disagrees with ONE policy of candidate X, a Catholic cannot in good faith support candidate X over candidates Y and Z -- even if candidate X's political stances are more in keeping with The Church's teachings than candidates Y's and Z's are. Even a Catholic who believes all abortions should be outlawed at all stages of pregnancy, regardless of concerns for the mother's health or life, might still in good conscience support a Presidential candidate who believes in "abortion on demand." (Obama does not, by the way.) Abortion is not the only issue that has "moral" or religious implications and ramifications. If a Protestant Church engages in blatantly political activity, that church can be stripped of it's tax-free status without the entire denomination being so penalized. Some churches have, in fact, been threatened with such action just for openly advocating an end to the occupation of Iraq. I would think that the parish of this particular priest could similarly be stripped of tax-exempt status for such openly partisan, political actions. Barnacle, I don't see how this priest's behavior could be seen as mere "speech" and not "political advocacy." He is not merely expressing his own opinion (which he is entitled to do, in an unofficial capacity -- and even from the pulpit if it's opinion on issues, rather than candidates or parties). He is going beyond "advocacy" to actually punishing parishioners for their political preferences/voting. That's about as clear an attempt at "establishment" of a state religion as you can get. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 05:13 PM (#2494144) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: akenaton I'm an atheist and used to be very much in favour of abortion and the wishes of the mother. As I've grown older and seen society change, I have become more uneasy about my position. For the young,sex now seems to have become a leisure pursuit and pregnancy a bit of an inconvenience. The feotus has become simply matter for disposal. How can anyone who believes in god as the giver of life support this situation? Even I as an unbeliever have great difficulty coming to term with it...Ake |
|
14 Nov 08 - 05:54 PM (#2494185) Subject: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Genie Ake, I'm sure we have plenty of other threads where the very complicated "abortion" issue has been debated. The point, for the purposes of this discussion, is that Barack Obama's stated policies re abortion/choice are fully in compliance with the laws of the United States of America and with his own state, Illinois. For a church, or its representative, to advocate against him politically because the laws of the US and/or some of its states do not fully line up with those of the Catholic Church is to overstep the rules of a tax-exempt religious organization. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 06:10 PM (#2494199) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: EBarnacle In this specific situation, perhaps the IRS would be imaginative and simply make any local church to which this individual is attached, now and in the future, tax liable. It is specific to the personal action and is not mass punishment. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 06:11 PM (#2494200) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: akenaton Some religious people feel that the abortion issue is of much more importance than Mr Obama's policies, or even the laws of the United States of America. This situation applied to other historical "causes", for example womens sufferage and civil rights. In some cases, laws exist to protect wrong doers |
|
14 Nov 08 - 06:14 PM (#2494203) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun From: Rapparee Why, I do believe that this priest has gone medieval on us! From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law." Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him. 1777 Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking. 2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." "We must obey God rather than men": When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel. 1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law: Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ. 1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God: We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 06:41 PM (#2494222) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Joe Offer Well, it was said in the beginning of this thread, and I think it warrants saying again - this was one priest in one parish in heavily conservative South Carolina. If you can get a thousand priests, or a dozen bishops, to bar Obama supporters from communion - then I'd be worried. As it is, it sounds like an isolated idiot. I saw just about the same headline on the Website of our local television station, and I got concerned because I got the impression it was a local story. Do they even HAVE Catholics in South Carolina? Take a look at the article about the priest in the local newspaper where he serves in a downtown parish - GreenvilleOniline.com. Note that the priest said he would not refuse communion to anyone, but thinks that Obama voters should not receive communion. Note also (click) that the priest's superiors appear to have repudiated his statement. The Website of the diocese is here (click). A PDF copy of the statement of the dioces is here. Like I say, it was one priest in one parish - and his superiors say he was wrong. -Joe- |
|
14 Nov 08 - 06:45 PM (#2494224) Subject: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Genie Akenaton: {{Some religious people feel that the abortion issue is of much more importance than Mr Obama's policies, or even the laws of the United States of America.}} That's their right. But it doesn't follow that all members of their church, in good conscience, will agree with that stance. And even the laws of the Catholic Church encompass far more issues than just abortion. If one considers all the Church's laws, a candidate who is "pro-choice" may support more of those principles than does another candidate who is "pro-life." This priest is still, unequivocally, engaging in practices that violate the laws that give non-political charitable organizations tax-exempt status. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 07:11 PM (#2494239) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Yes Genie, I see your point, I'm not supporting the priest, just noting what may be motivating his actions. I suppose he should not refuse communion to anyone who wishes it? Is this the case? Still can't get my head around how religious folks can believe in god yet be "pro choice"tho'. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 07:20 PM (#2494245) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Amos here are three domains here which are intersecting much more heavily than they have reason to. One is the domain comprising all our baked, half-baked, and completely gooey raw postulates and assumptions about the spiritual aspect of existing. Some put God in there, others put wood-sprites and naiads and thunder-gods. The second is the domain of moral judgments about right action, wrong action and "don't care" action weighed in our many different scales of goodness and badness. People often conflate these two, asserting that God dictates their moral choices, which is tricky, but their business. The third is the civil domain where the dynamics of how we are to live with each other naturally fall. Every law and regulation governing personal liberty, personal obligation to the community, obligations among groups within the nation, transactions among states, individuals and corporations, fundamental rights, what shall be subjected to rules and what shall not be, fall here. It is madness to inject godhead (zone 1) into civic regulation, a lesson we learned in the centuries prior top 1750. Despite this lesson, Porposition 8 in California wa slargely defended by some on "spiritual" grounds; I would argue the word received serious abuse in this context. Defining right and wrong actions (the nature of moral judgements) based on godhead is one step away from that madness, but still very much in the color of it. To allow ancient codes and decrees to dictate to you what is right or wroing, regardless of what you see and think for yourself, is to subordinate your ability to know to an authority not closely linked to your own experience--even if it is a parent. This means you are committing yourself to adulterating your own integrity in order to get along with an authority, a slippery slope indeed. Injecting zone 2 into zone 3 is probably inescapable, since people want to live under laws they believe or moral. It is unfortunate that the difference between authroitarian moral decrees and moral/ethical decision based on live thinking attention are not differentiated among, but they aren't. Regardless, the remedy we have evolved in our country is to require a coherent framework of ideals with which all regulations should align, called the Constitution. One of the key precepts of such a system is to leave to individual decision those powers that do not actually have to be centralized for the public good. Likewise, the Consittution specifically leaves to the States jurisdictions not named as belonging to the Federal government. The principle of leaving such decisions to the lowest level at which they can be made is a very wise one, because, by its nature, it maximizes the self-determination of individuals in States, and of States in a Federation. When citizens are unwilling to allow others to exercise free choice in one or another subject, the first question that has to be asked is whether public harm (rather than moral appropbation) is being caused. That is why anti-miscegenation laws are now dead, and absurd. No actual public harm. Similarly, there is no public harm in letting women vote as equals, or in requiring equal rights among citizens of different colors. There is hterefore no grounds for a State to ge tinvolved with them under the principle mentioned above. There is no public harm, either, in two people receiving legal., civic recognition of their intention to become a couple under the law, regardless of their color OR their sexual orientation OR their religion OR their income OR their breakfast cereal. It is an unconscionable reversal of the best of our Great American Experiment in freedom to decree that their is, and a sorry manifestation of either ignorance, confusion, or ill-will on the part of those who have confused these three distinct domains with their ill-considered votes. A |
|
14 Nov 08 - 07:21 PM (#2494247) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Mick Roman Catholics that focus solely on the abortion issue are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the catechism of their own church. Joe, correct me if I am wrong, but there is no weighting of mortal sin. A grave sin is mortal if it is committed with full knowledge and with deliberate consent, of the sinner. This brings to mind a couple of thoughts. One of the sins considered to be mortal is the defrauding of a working person of their wages, another would be mistreatment of the poor, and another would be voluntary murder. This deluded priest probably supported John Kennedy for President, yet John Kerry's and Barack Obama's position on abortion is really no different from his. Neither believes that abortion is proper or desired, but agreed that they must respect the law. I can hardly see how the priest can say that Obama is giving consent for abortion. He is simply obeying the law, and upholding the Constitution. Yet I wonder further, how come this radical right priest did not threaten the conservatives that voted for Bush, and McCain, in the same way. Did these men not support the waging of war on false pretenses, resulting in the deaths of thousands of US citizens and Iraqi citizens? Did not many children die as a result of policies undertaken with full knowledge from, and with deliberate consent of, and administration that was fully aware that it was being waged under false pretenses? I wonder how he justifies giving communion to those, who with knowledge and intent, voted for policies designed to centralize wealth in the hands of the very rich, to the detriment of the working men and women and their families? I wonder if he does not see that the actions of the CEO's on Wall Street and in the offices of the investment banks constitutes usury, and is done with knowledge and intent. Here's a newsflash for these right wing "Christians" from a left wing liberation style Catholic. Christ is coming ....... and is he pissed off. Mick
|
|
14 Nov 08 - 07:27 PM (#2494253) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton I see it's wriggle time on the Mudcat! What have laws to do with faith in god as the giver of life? |
|
14 Nov 08 - 07:39 PM (#2494259) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: artbrooks Access to abortion, at least in the US, is an issue covered by law, not by faith. An individual whose "faith in god as the giver of life" brings him or her to believe that abortion is contrary to that faith has every right, under the law, to choose not to have one. He or she has no right, under the law, to deny anyone else that access. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 07:45 PM (#2494264) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Yeah..but you cant stop "believing" just becase there is a little old law in the way!...Get your priorities right! |
|
14 Nov 08 - 08:37 PM (#2494286) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Amos The correct priority, Ake, is the COnstitutional separation of affairs of the cmmons and civic concerns from affairs of the spirit and religions. Religions get real happy to contravene this division right up to the momet when someone offers to tax their real estate. A |
|
14 Nov 08 - 09:36 PM (#2494318) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Al Whittle well I think it amounts to base ingratitude. heres this priest, and he's trying to work you out a good deal with the almighty. when you are dead you will be quids in with god. a cloud with all mod cons and the key to the executive washroom. you won't like it if you wind up in hell with the other democrats. |
|
14 Nov 08 - 09:37 PM (#2494319) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee Mind you, I'm in favor of taxing the churches. Churches are taxed in other countries (France, for example) and the First Amendment simply says, in effect, that all religions will be treated the same. Tax 'em all, says I! Full speed ahead! |
|
14 Nov 08 - 11:33 PM (#2494372) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Ron Davies Some churches outside the US are taxed. But the situation varies. France may have an aggressively secular state, due to perceived abuses by the Church in the past. But in Germany the situation is totally different. It's much more of a partnership. At least in 1998, (International Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief-- paper by Juergen Warnke): "religious communities which are public law corporations" (most of the largest religious groups) " have the right to levy taxes on the basis of the income tax." They can tax their own members and the state collects the tax for them. In some parts of Germany the connection is even closer. " For instance in Bavaria, for those churches with public law corporation status, the state of Bavaria pays about 8 DM per member per year as a kind of remuneration to the churches." Regardless of how Mudcatters may protest the tax exemption of churches in the US, it's nothing like the Bavarian situation. The US First Amendment plays a role not always seen abroad. Perhaps Wolfgang or another of our German posters could comment--in case this is an oversimplification. |
|
15 Nov 08 - 04:30 AM (#2494421) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Genie Rapaire, I'm with you - as an active member of a church, in fact. I think churches should be taxed like any other organization -- perhaps with the exception of unequivocally charitable programs such as feeding the hungry and clothing those who need clothing, etc. (I.e., church-organized homeless shelters, free community suppers, clothing drives, etc., would not be taxed on the money they bring in or on the properties they use, but buildings and programs that are strictly sectarian in nature -- e.g, worship services in person or on TV -- would be subject to the same sorts of taxes that a political think tank would be.) For one thing, I think this sort of policy change would do a lot to encouraging churches to be "conservative" in the use of their funds for things like buildings, decoration, salaries, choirs, etc. -- relying more on volunteers, member contributions, and paid workers who aren't in it for the money. For another, I think it would make an important distinction between what is widely accepted as "public service" or "humanitarian" work (e.g., feeding people) and things that are much more debatable (e.g., indoctinating people into far less widely accepted dogmatic tenets, such as "the virgin birth" or the belief that "homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God.") |
|
15 Nov 08 - 09:20 AM (#2494521) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Azizi Here's a hyperlink to a dailykos diary that was written by a woman who indicates that she and her family has attended that priest's church and the church's school for 11 years: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/15/01126/965/794/661283 SC Priest's hand slapped by Diocese by teresahill Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:11:26 PM PST -snip- It should be noted that the author of this diary indicates that before that priest's statement against supporters of President Elect Barack Obama she had a very unfavorable opinion of him and her opinion of him is even more unfavorable now. As indicated in that diary, there is presently no Bishop of the Charleston diocise. However the highest ranking Catholic clergy of that diocise, Monsignor Martin Laughlin, administrator of the Diocese of Charleston has put out this statement repudiating what that priest said: "CHARLESTON, S.C. (November 14, 2008) - This past week, the Catholic Church's clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church's clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman's statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church's teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions." The Catechism goes on to state: "In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church." Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion. The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God's truth, as is the Church's teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church. We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009. I ask also for your continued prayers for me and for the Diocese of Charleston" |
|
15 Nov 08 - 09:23 AM (#2494525) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: artbrooks Thank you, Azizi. |
|
15 Nov 08 - 11:31 AM (#2494591) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Richard Bridge "sex now seems to have become a leisure pursuit and pregnancy a bit of an inconvenience" That, surely, happened in the 60s when the pill was invented, didn't it? Alas I see all this as part of systematic demonisation of sex by the RC church with a view to establishing leverage by guilt. If you feel guilty enough, your church can manipulate you into doing (or giving) almost anything - rather like the selling of indulgences. Other churches are just as bad - but go for different attack points. |
|
15 Nov 08 - 11:35 AM (#2494593) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Peter the Squeezer Spike Milligan once corresponded with a Catholic priest (can't remember the exact quotation, but here goes) - When the unwanted babies of the world are crawling up the steps of St Peter's in Rome, then maybe the church will see the error of its ways, and give out the pill as well as the host. Following this, the preist concerned chose not to continue with the correspondance. |
|
15 Nov 08 - 11:52 AM (#2494604) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: GUEST,maple_leaf_boy There is a legitimate reason why abortion should not be supported, though. There have been plenty of unplanned children who grew up to be great people, and made good contributions to society. |
|
15 Nov 08 - 12:05 PM (#2494609) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow Should be noted that Spike Milligna there was talking about contraception, not about abortion. |
|
15 Nov 08 - 12:21 PM (#2494613) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Al Whittle 'There is a legitimate reason why abortion should not be supported' no one's asking for support. just butt out in matters that are of a deeply personal nature. And quite difficult and fraught enough for the people involved, as it is. And seeing as your church has been guilty of threatening with hellfire everyone from the first internal combustion users to people who believed the earth was round, and people who wanted to marry outside the faith maybe a little humility might occasionally be in order - a little less certainty about what is in store on the other side. Cos no one really KNOWS, do they? |
|
15 Nov 08 - 01:01 PM (#2494629) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow "everyone from the first internal combustion users to people who believed the earth was round" - I don't think so. |
|
15 Nov 08 - 02:34 PM (#2494687) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: JohnInKansas Recent news: Saudi women Catholic women Afghan women What's the real difference? No answers required. I already have my own opinion. John |
|
15 Nov 08 - 02:38 PM (#2494690) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Al Whittle Theres a Kingsley Amis novel called The Alteration (its about forty years since I read it) - science Fiction, an England without the Protestant reformation and what would still be outlawed - planes, cars, all kinds of other stuff - and didn't Giordano Bruno get burned for saying the earth moved round the sun, or something similar. And my own mother aged seven was threatened with hellfire for being the product of a mixed marriage. Anyway its quibbling with the facts - the Papacy doesn't have a great record on being right about very much - let alone infallible. And I think the yanks did pretty well in their new choice of President in the circumstances. |
|
15 Nov 08 - 05:42 PM (#2494773) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow Well, we agree on the last bit... |
|
15 Nov 08 - 06:41 PM (#2494797) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee An awful lot of things the Papacy did was because folks criticized the Papacy. See, if ol' Martin Luther had just shut the hell up like his superiors in the Augustinians had told him to (or if they'd even just taken away his tack hammer) or if the Hank 8 had just Anne Boelyn'd Catherine of Aragon, why, a whole raft of troubles could have been avoided! And that feller Gutenberg, too; shucks, folks should have been writing things down in Scriptoriums like God intended, but nooooo, he's got to go invent movable type and make books cheap enough for 'most anyone to afford. Next thing you know you got people like Galileo and Tycho Brahe and Chuck Darwin and Voltaire (whose name sounds like one of the X-men) and Alexandre Dumas pere et fils writing any old thing without an imprimatur or a nihil obstat or even a look-see by the office of the Holy Inquisition! Sheesh, I just don't know WHAT this world is coming to! Lordy, I must go lie down and fan mah brow! |
|
15 Nov 08 - 06:56 PM (#2494806) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: artbrooks Yeah - and you would have had to have been in holy orders to be a librarian...and what would Mrs. Rapaire have thought about THAT? |
|
15 Nov 08 - 07:28 PM (#2494824) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee ...The Sunday next the merchant was y-gone, To Saint Denis y-comen is Dan John, With crown and beard all fresh and newly shave, In all the house was not so little a knave, Nor no wight elles that was not full fain For that my lord Dan John was come again. And shortly to the point right for to gon, The faire wife accorded with Dan John, That for these hundred francs he should all night Have her in his armes bolt upright; And this accord performed was in deed. In mirth all night a busy life they lead, Till it was day, that Dan John went his way, And bade the meinie "Farewell; have good day." For none of them, nor no wight in the town, Had of Dan John right no suspicioun; And forth he rode home to his abbay, Or where him list; no more of him I say.... --Jeff Chaucer, The Shipman's Tale Monk? Friar? Priest? So? |
|
16 Nov 08 - 03:49 AM (#2494958) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: alanabit For all the crimes, which can be laid at the door of the Catholic church (and the charge sheet is a long one) I have yet to meet the Catholic, who has tried to persuade me, that it is the One True Faith, that contraception should be banned, that women, who have had abortions, should be punished, or that the Pope is infallible. What would be newsworthy would be if we could find any organisation anywhere, which did not employ a single crank. The fact that the Catholic Church employs one prat in South Carolina is not anything I can work up much indignation about. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 04:04 AM (#2494965) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Al Whittle You might have felt differently if he had succeeded in mobilising his church into getting JM elected. I agree though. Catholics are delightful people generally. You just can't help thinking they deserve a better church. One that was a bit nicer to them and everyone else. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 04:36 AM (#2494974) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: DMcG Since the doctrine of papal infallibility has been mentioned a copule of times, it is worth summarising what I was taught about it in a Catholic school at the age of about eight at a time when we still had the Latin Mass: It became official in 1870, which is pretty recent given the age of the organisation and was much more to do with political structure than teaching per se. There was a long argument beforehand about a particular matter and the question arose whether the role of the Pope was similar to a monarch or president (ie listening to advisors and then making the definitive statement independently of their advice) or more like a chairman of a board (the board as whole decides, and the chairman is more of a spokesman.) Whichever structure applies, the board and/or advisors must back the decision and should not continue to promote any of the alternative viewpoints. If you like, collective responsibility applies. (Yes, that was the sort of thing that eight year olds were expected to understand in my school. I'm pretty sure I did!) |
|
16 Nov 08 - 04:54 AM (#2494976) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: DMcG For clarity, instead of "Whichever structure applies" it would have been better to write "Papal infallibility is essentially a statement that the organisation is monarchal/presidential" |
|
16 Nov 08 - 06:13 AM (#2494997) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""to people who believed the earth was round" - I don't think so."" Galileo came in for a serious bashing for telling the truth about science. As far as I recall from my (long since discarded) catholic upbringing, the Pope is infallible in matters of Catholic DOCTRINE and DOGMA only. Don T. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 09:25 AM (#2495075) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: McGrath of Harlow The idea that the earth is round has not been a matter of controversy since the days of the Ancient Greeks. The notion of a flat earth is a pretty modern one.Washington Irving wrote a story about Christopher Columbus in 1828 in which he had the sailor worried about falling of the edge of the Earth, and the idea attracted some support later in the century. No shortage of things you can knock the Church for in 2000 years, but flat earthism is not one of them. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 10:11 AM (#2495089) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee Read the book "How the Pope became infallible: Pius IX and the politics of persuasion" by August Hasler (foreword by Hans Kung). The whole question should be revisited, and the sooner the better. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 01:40 PM (#2495274) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: alanabit With respect Don, I also think we have to acquit the Catholic Church of Flat Earthism at the time of Gallileo. By the time Gallileo was writing, that sort of argument was pretty tricky to maintain - not least of all due to the fact that both Magellan and Sir Francis Drake had circumnavigated the world. What we can put on the charge sheet is that the church refused to accept that the Earth revolves around the sun. Copernicus had already discovered this and Gallileo demonstrated it beyond any reasonable doubt. To be fair to the church though, under John Paul II they did concede that Gallileo had a point... I would hesitate to accuse them of being unreasonable. It is just that they are not always at the cutting edge of science... |
|
16 Nov 08 - 01:53 PM (#2495286) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow In terms of relativity it is just as true to talk of the Sun as going round the Earth as the other way round. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 03:22 PM (#2495331) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: beardedbruce Art, The problem with your statement "An individual whose "faith in god as the giver of life" brings him or her to believe that abortion is contrary to that faith has every right, under the law, to choose not to have one. He or she has no right, under the law, to deny anyone else that access. " is that it is the law that those individuals wish to change. To one who rejects abortion, it is equal to the statement An individual whose "faith in god as the giver of life" brings him or her to believe that murder is contrary to that faith has every right, under the law, to choose not to have one. He or she has no right, under the law, to deny anyone else that access. It is a convention that this society has outlawed most murder, but allows it when the individual is under a certain age. Logically, a group of cells is human after fertilization- Why pick 6 months, or birth, or even 1 year old ( as some cultures have in the past)? Why not allow the killing of those under 18, if they are unwanted or inconvenient? The soiciety has made a decision, and those opposed to abortion disagree with it. As did those who fought against slavery, or for civil rights. Would YOU accept the statement An individual whose "faith in god as the giver of life" brings him or her to believe that slavery is contrary to that faith has every right, under the law, to choose not to have one. He or she has no right, under the law, to deny anyone else that access. ?????? |
|
16 Nov 08 - 05:09 PM (#2495377) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow There is a genuine clash between two sets of human rights here. It would seem reasonable to argue that this should mean that the decision as to which to give priority is a political decision, rather than one where a judgement at a particular time by judges (appointed by politicians) should expect to be decisive. But treating it as a party political issue is a pretty disastrous way of going about it, as illustrated by the episode that started this thread. There are no perfect ways of resolving a clash like this, but perhaps the best one might be on the basis of a popular referendum with voting restricted to women. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 06:30 PM (#2495436) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: artbrooks Bruce, I was responding to Ake's question: "What have laws to do with faith in god as the giver of life?" My intent was to say that the issue of access to abortion, in the US, is a legal one rather than a religious one. Certainly, anyone or any group who wishes to change the law, through the established legislative process, has every right to do so. Please excuse me for not responding to your question asking me if I would accept the statement that "an individual whose "faith in god as the giver of life" brings him or her to believe that slavery is contrary to that faith has every right, under the law, to choose not to have one. He or she has no right, under the law, to deny anyone else that access." This makes no grammatical sense whatever, and I do not understand what it is intended to mean. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 06:54 PM (#2495450) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow "I do not understand what it is intended to mean. " Maybe if the two passages are modified slightly: 'An individual whose "faith in god as the giver of life" brings him or her to believe that abortion is contrary to that faith has every right, under the law, to choose not to have one. He or she has no right, under the law, to deny anyone else" the right to have an abortion.' 'An individual whose "faith in god as the giver of life" brings him or her to believe that slavery is contrary to that faith has every right, under the law, to choose not to have one. He or she has no right, under the law, to deny anyone else" the right to own a slave.' In the second case of course the law has been modified rather dramatically since a time when it was true. Which I take it was the point that bruce was making. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 07:13 PM (#2495468) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Peace "Why not just tell 'em that it's okay if they voted for Obama as long as they wear paper bags over their heads while squawking like chickens for fifteen minutes, followed by the ritual kissing of a black cat on the ass while standing under a ladder and throwing non-iodized salt over one's left shoulder?" Where does one find non-iodized salt, huh? Where? |
|
16 Nov 08 - 07:17 PM (#2495472) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: artbrooks Morton sells it. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 07:20 PM (#2495477) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Peace Not THE Morton . . . . |
|
16 Nov 08 - 07:22 PM (#2495479) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Jeri Or you can get kosher salt or sea salt. The coarse sea salt can really do a number on someone if you want to do the ninja shoulder salt-throwing thing. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 07:28 PM (#2495482) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: artbrooks Jeri, if you let one of those big blue canisters of Mortons get a bit damp, and THEN throw it over your shoulder - major mayhem can result. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 07:28 PM (#2495483) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Peace Are we all talking about NaCl? |
|
16 Nov 08 - 07:29 PM (#2495484) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Peace I thought BWL meant to throw and old sailor over yer shoulder . . . . |
|
16 Nov 08 - 07:34 PM (#2495486) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Barry Finn Leave it to the C. Church to go have a hissy fit when they can't keep their own from bugging kids, they got a lot of nerve talking abortions when they can't get their own act cleaned up & there's plenty they need to clean up, then they can go about preaching the Gospel to the rest of us non believers, until then "stuff it"! They should try stopping war or seeing to the end of genocide, turn wine into fishes, do something useful for those that need it, it's not just about sole. Jesus, if they had come out against the Nazis in the earlier part of WWII they might have save millions, why don't they get into the business of saving the lives of the living first before they try saving those that aren't yet born, the ass behind the cart I'd guess. They'd be very helpful if they'd try to broker a peace agreement between the Israelies & the Palistinians but I imagine they'd claim it's not their line of work besides if they sit back & by long enough they might figure they can go in after the fires out & lay claim to the leftovers. High time they get a life of their own & live it instead of minding the business of every one else. Barry a former Catlick |
|
16 Nov 08 - 08:12 PM (#2495501) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Jeri Plenty of sea salts around, but I don't think people are kosher. I can't fathom (that wasn't a 'sea salt' related pun) why followers of Jesus Christ could be so judgmental and full of hate. Not that it's unusual--not since his followers wanted to stone Mary M. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 08:48 PM (#2495517) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow Some very curious versions of the bible appear to circulate in the States... |
|
16 Nov 08 - 08:56 PM (#2495520) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Amos I don't think it's logical to use the word "human being" for two cells just fertilized, Bruce--anymore than you would to a hangnail, which has more human cells, better organized. A |
|
16 Nov 08 - 09:40 PM (#2495537) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Joe Offer I think it's important to realize that the Catholic Church is not what ultraconservatives say it is, and I think it's clear the priest in question falls into the ultraconservative category. There is some layman who printed up very official-sounding brochures that made it sound like voting for Obama was a mortal sin, and the brochure was distributed all over our country. Cars in our parish parking lot got leafletted during Mass the Sunday before the election - without permission from the pastor. I'm sure at least a good number of people were left with the impression that there was official Catholic Church disapproval of Barack Obama, and this was not the case. The Doctrine of Infallibility has nothing to do with this. It's not the Pope who's infallible - it's certain teachings on matters of faith and morals that are promulgated under very strict (and quite rational) conditions, and only two doctrines have met those criteria since the Doctrine of Infallibility was promulgated in the 1870's. On the other hand, I think it's foolish to say that the Catholic Church has no business saying abortion is evil. There are various perspectives on the issue, but belief that abortion is taking a life is certainly one valid perspective. Drop all the philosophical arguments for a moment and consider this: if a foetus is lost through miscarriage or abortion, don't we have a natural tendency to grieve? Even if the loss is necessary, it certainly is never a cause for celebration - and it certainly would be better if some alternative could be found. My belief is that abortion is always evil, but sometimes it's the least evil of the available choices. Most Catholic bishops would disagree with me, but they would agree what we need to seek alternatives to abortion. Barack Obama said that, too. Bill Clinton used to say that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I'd agree with that. -Joe- |
|
16 Nov 08 - 09:49 PM (#2495539) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Peace Well said, Joe. |
|
16 Nov 08 - 11:57 PM (#2495578) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee I've noticed that those who claim to be "pro-life" are very often also pro-war and pro-death penalty. Ah.... My own feeling is that abortion is a matter left to the conscience of the woman involved. Legal, yes; safe, yes. But if the churches want to teach that abortion (or contraception, for that matter) is morally wrong they have the right to do so. But they should be consistent in their teachings before they call themselves "pro-life." Oddly enough the Catholic Church has (recently) been consistent in this matter (if you take into consideration the concept of just and unjust wars). |
|
17 Nov 08 - 02:59 AM (#2495610) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Look guys you can't have it both ways. Seems to me, that if you TRULY believe in God, and .its not just a bit of posing or being one of the gang, then you must be against abortion in any circumstances. No matter how wrong the conception may have been, the unborn child is always innocent, and if one is a religious person, "Gods work" I personally think that "Christians" who support abortion are the worst sort of hypocrites, and that might include Mr Obama. Mr Palin expressed a view which is unpopular today, but is is truly her view and though I personally disagree with her, I respect her for holding to it. Are the religious really just like politicians, picking and choosing the parts of their belief that they think the general public might agree with? That is the way of the elitist, the well educated, the manipulators. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 03:04 AM (#2495611) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Lest my motives be misconstrued,I support not only abortion, or pro/choice, but also a cull of at least 50% of our species.....Ake Just to make the world a safer and less hungry place you understand! |
|
17 Nov 08 - 04:25 AM (#2495649) Subject: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Genie I wish you guys who want to debate the "abortion" issue per se would do it in a separate thread. What we're talking about here (allegedly) is whether a tax-exempt, non-political charitable organization can legitimately advocate for or against political parties or candidates without really violating the rules of their tax-exempt status. Nobody seems to be arguing that this priest, or the Catholic Church, isn't allowed to hold whatever views they want on abortion. But for the church or its representative to stick his nose/their noses into the business of the voting behavior of parishioners, that's another matter. G |
|
17 Nov 08 - 05:42 AM (#2495678) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Genie...we are not really debating the abortion issue, but the issue of "belief".....which I think you will find was the motivation for the actions of said priest. I don.t believe the Catholic Church....being the worlds greatest pragmatists...will support one renegade priest in his stance. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 08:28 AM (#2495752) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow I can't think of any political issues that aren't also moral issues. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 09:16 AM (#2495774) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee EVERY political or legal issue can have (and usually does) have ethical, moral, and religious overtones for somebody. The priest's boss has shut him up and rightly so. The question of the morality of an act (defined here as "God'll getcha for that!") is not the business of the State but of the Churches. The Churches should teach their view of what is moral and immoral but not try to impose those ideas upon the State (vide, in passim "Render unto Caesar...."). If you believe that drinking coffee or having an abortion are immoral, fine, but don't try to pass laws prohibiting ME from doing such. If the beliefs of your Church are such that you must toss me, a member, out of it because of my beliefs or actions, fine -- but the parish priest is not the level to do this and never has been. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 09:20 AM (#2495777) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: artbrooks Ake, it seems to me that you, as a professed atheist, have come up with your own definition of religious belief and your own understanding of what a religious person must believe. This definition appears to be based on your concept of the tenets of some of the more conservative versions of Christianity, even though the majority of Americans' (and certainly Mudcatters') beliefs are different. Then you ask people to defend their beliefs in the context of your definition. Somehow, I don't think so. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 09:29 AM (#2495786) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Is it wriggle time already?...Its only 2pm! |
|
17 Nov 08 - 09:32 AM (#2495787) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Amos I think in the final analysis --whether the issue is abortion, homosexuality, masturbation, polygamy or how to cook a dog--the bottom line is this: a religious organization may have whatever rules of inclusion and e3xclusion it wants to have based on belief and interpretation but nmay only do so under the civic contract that gives them a place to operate from in the first place. In earlier periods of history, those civic contract items were often handled by the churches because few of the civilians could read or write, and records had to be kept. But with a literate civilian population, the tent of civic law has to have primacy. And the primacy of the commons should be proofed up against intrusion on religious grouonds from religious groups. A A |
|
17 Nov 08 - 09:47 AM (#2495795) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow So for a church to encourage its members to see slavery or the death penalty or racism as things that should be opposed would be to overstep the mark? |
|
17 Nov 08 - 10:12 AM (#2495808) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Amos Not at all. And you raise a telling point. SLavery and racism, at least, are core violations of the constitutional contract outlined in the Declaration of Independence. They ar eexactly the kinds of things that churches should militate against because they are against the civic code of the commons. In Porposition 8, contrariwise, churches are resorting to activism against the core values expressed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights. That is a pretty big difference. A |
|
17 Nov 08 - 10:47 AM (#2495821) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Surely the churches should always act against evil as they see it, regardless of the law? |
|
17 Nov 08 - 10:55 AM (#2495827) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: CarolC Mr Obama has had some interesting things to say on the subject of abortion. He said he is personally against abortion, but he doesn't believe in making it illegal. He also said that during Democratic presidential administrations, the number of abortions in the US goes down, and that during Republican administrations, the number of abortions goes up. This is because, despite what people who want to make abortion illegal seem to think, there is actually life after birth, and when conditions for sustaining life decline (availability of jobs, access to health care, etc), the number of abortions goes up. There is also the fact that it is not possible to stop women from getting illegal abortions, causing the deaths of many women along with the embryos. The question can never be, which one is completely right and which one is completely wrong. The question is, which one causes more pain and suffering for more people in the long run. And this is why religious people like Mr. Obama can be for keeping abortion legal while being personally against abortion. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 11:43 AM (#2495866) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Amos Ake: I am sorry--that's a recipe for disaster. Consider, for example, that the fanatics who flew the Planes of 9-11 were striking out against evil as they saw it, regardless of the law. The code of the land here in the United States includes civil rights and a commitment to equality under the rule of law. When a church seeks to erode that code in matters of the commons, rather than the pricate affaitrs of the flock within the church, they have violated their social contract with the nation as surely as an individual does who tries to punch out an abortion clinic doctor. A |
|
17 Nov 08 - 11:56 AM (#2495883) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee If a church -- any church -- believes that something which is legal is intrinsically immoral by the teachings of that church, then that church can preach the immorality to its followers. This in no was gives it the right to command others, although it does have the right to try to persuade them. When something is in itself intrinsically wrong (both unethical AND immoral not matter how you look at it), such as slavery or genocide, then all religions and churches, as well as everyone else, have the obligation to speak against and act against it. We forget that we are barbarians and our mores are not those of everyone else. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 12:51 PM (#2495936) Subject: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Genie McGrath: "So for a church to encourage its members to see slavery or the death penalty or racism as things that should be opposed would be to overstep the mark?" No. Religious organizations and their leaders (including priests, rabbis, imams, etc.) can preach whatever beliefs they want, on issues. They can actively protest war, slavery, abortion, homosexuality, fornication, women working outside the home, or even [shudder] dancing. No violation of the separation of church and state there; no attempt to give the state control over the church or vice versa. But when they start telling people which candidates they may or may not vote for, that does cross the line. If the church holds that abortion is a mortal sin and if Candidate X proposes that abortion be kept legal, an individual Catholic might vote for Candidate X and then, believing that the vote was a sin, "confess" it to a priest. After that, with the "sin" forgiven, communion should be offered just as it would have been if he had not so "sinned." But if another Catholic, even one who agrees that all abortions should be banned, chooses to vote for Candidate X -- for any number of reasons -- and does not see that as a sin, he has no reason to "confess" it to the priest. And the priest has no business asking how the parishioners voted (or at least no business expecting an answer). |
|
17 Nov 08 - 01:22 PM (#2495967) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee I'd give him the same answer I once gave an "exit pollster": "It's none of your goddam business!" Then I'd never again darken the door of his church. My vote is my business, not that of anyone else. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 01:25 PM (#2495969) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: CarolC Another aspect that I think is important and that I think gets overlooked... Each individual is responsible for their actions and their decisions in life. In belief structures in which people believe in an afterlife, there are usually consequences for actions and decisions taken in the physical life. If someone's conscience tells them to vote for one candidate because they think his or her opponent would cause more pain and suffering in the world (like starting a nuclear war, for instance) and their priest tells them to vote for the opponent, it isn't the priest who will face consequences in the afterlife for their vote if the candidate the priest told them to vote for ends up causing more pain and suffering in the world (or more "evil") than the person they wanted to vote for. They, themselves are the ones who will fact those consequences. That's one of the reasons it is wrong for churches to tell people that they will face spiritual punishment if they don't vote the way the priest tells them to. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 01:33 PM (#2495974) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee I'd give the same answer if asked by the Pope, the Prophet, the First President, the High Priest, or anyone else. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 01:42 PM (#2495983) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Amos YEah...but I betcha if Obama phoned you up and asled if you had voted for him you'd tell him that you did. A |
|
17 Nov 08 - 02:01 PM (#2496000) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow When something is in itself intrinsically wrong (both unethical AND immoral not matter how you look at it), such as slavery or genocide, then all religions and churches, as well as everyone else, have the obligation to speak against and act against it. The trouble is that there are sometimes different opinions about whether something is "intrinsically wrong" or not. However the notion that making something illegal should be seen as the only or the best way of stopping it happening just does not stand up to scrutiny. And the judgement on that is about politics, not about morality. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 03:26 PM (#2496057) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee Amos, I am a Sociable Anarchist. We had an anarchistic social hour. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 03:29 PM (#2496058) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: artbrooks Ake is being his trollish self. Shall we allow this thread to return to the original premise or just go away? |
|
17 Nov 08 - 04:52 PM (#2496135) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton All wriggled out chaps? Still think the priest was acting in line with his principles and Mr Obama was not. Art..How do I give up trollism? Start to agree with everybody else? |
|
17 Nov 08 - 05:12 PM (#2496149) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: CarolC I don't see having a capacity for subtlety as wriggling. Other people's mileage may vary. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 05:26 PM (#2496164) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Amos You're off base, as far as whether Obama was acting on his opriniples. It isa NOT one of his principles, as it seems to be yours, that he has the right to dictate moral positions to others. He is quite principaled about not doing so. This is in support of the fundamentals of democratic society, as distinguished from theocracy, oligarchy, rumorocracy, or Rule by Imaginary Playmates. A |
|
17 Nov 08 - 05:41 PM (#2496176) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Carol...I'd never accuse you of wriggling.....wiggling maybe!! :0) |
|
17 Nov 08 - 06:08 PM (#2496193) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow There is a problem in reconciling the principle that democracy should rely on the will of the people, and the principle that it should rest on fundamental human rights which if need be overide that will. The compromise involvd in the US system is that the fundamental rights are enshrined i the constitution, and thta the Supreme Court decides how this shoudl be interpreted. But of course the decisions of the Supreme Court are dependent on politically appointed judges, and how they interpret the constitution can vary enormously, depending on the people who have been appointed. Basically it does all come down to politics. |
|
17 Nov 08 - 08:55 PM (#2496301) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Genie Rapaire: "I am a Sociable Anarchist. We had an anarchistic social hour." If you scheduled it for a specific time and limited it to an hour, that's not very anarchistic, Rap. ; D |
|
17 Nov 08 - 09:15 PM (#2496309) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Amos That tension, McGrath, is what makes a democracy hard work. But the Founding Fathers knew clearly that society is a dynamic, forceful, evolving thing, not a static orghanization chart. They knew there would be strife, and they tried hard to make pipelines that could handle strife without breaking down into chaos. So far their invention of a self-healing democracy has trundled along pretty well, greatly helped by a huge reserve of natural resources that once belonged to others. On the bi-centennial (1976) my father, who did that sort of thing for a living, wrote an editorial that ended with the line, "After two hundred years, it's too soon to quit." Which I believe is perfectly true still. A |
|
17 Nov 08 - 10:00 PM (#2496331) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Amos I would add that President-Elect Obama discusses this issue in depth in The Audacity of Hope as a problem we are all engaged with. And he makes a good point -- it is absurd for progressives or unbelievers to demand that people of faith leave their moral codes at the gate; law is itself a codification of morality. But what we do require is the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific concerns; that their proposals must be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I think that sums it up nicely. A |
|
18 Nov 08 - 02:50 AM (#2496422) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton How does a "believer" make his or her position/arguments amenable to reason? Surely a believer is motivated by faith? |
|
18 Nov 08 - 04:01 AM (#2496455) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Joe Offer Every election year, the U.S. Catholic bishops put out a document offering guidance for Catholic Voters. This year's, document, Faithful Citizenship, caused quite a stir among the ultraconservatives, because it made it clear that the bishops were not rigidly opposed to the election of a Democratic president. There was a strong backlash in the anti-abortion movement, who felt they had been betrayed by the bishops. The official-looking leaflets left on cars in our church parking lot were published by Randall Terry, an anti-abortion activist who does not seem like the kind of person I would like to have living next door. One Randall Terry Website, http://www.randallterry.com/, has a brief video from the 85-yr-old retired bishop of Corpus Christi, which says that "Barack Hussein Obama" is a pro-abortion candidate, so Catholics may not vote for him. Another Terry Website, www.ahumbleplea.com, has PDF copies of the hateful brochure titled "Is It Immoral To Vote For Obama." The other one, "Faithful Catholic Citizenship," is even more insidious because it has a title and logo very similar to the bishops' "Faithful Citizenship" documents. The last sentence of this deceptive brochure is this: "But you may not in good conscience vote for Barack Obama if you want to be a "Faithful Catholic Citizen." Please note that Randall Terry joined the Catholic Church in 2005. I wonder how he acquired so much expertise in so little time..... -Joe- P.S. Ake.....for centuries, the Catholic Church has taught that faith, church teachings, and moral judgments must be based on reason AND faith. There's plenty of reason in religious beliefs and practices - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" makes a lot of rational sense. MOST religions are built on that principle. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 06:17 AM (#2496529) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Al Whittle The bit about 'cooking the dog' intrigued me. Has the Pope had much to say on the matter - I think not. Where are the ecumenical councils on the canine question - it won't go away you know. Meanwhile, the family is coming round on Sunday - so I've got in a St Bernard to make sure there a enough to go round. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 06:30 AM (#2496537) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Joe....I have every respect for the way in which you moderate this forum and try to give every one of our members the oppertunity to voice their opinions.......but I cant agree with this statement. "There's plenty of reason in religious beliefs and practices" That is not to say that there is no value in the views or practices of religious people. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 07:19 AM (#2496568) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Al Whittle Absolutely Ake! Thomas Aquinas! call himself a philosopher....! You need a real intellectual like Carol Vorderman to determine the nature of reality and the reality of nature. And she did the vowels and consonants as well. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 09:38 AM (#2496671) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Your irony is a bit over my head Al. As my old Uncle used to say "Ye cannae insult me, I'm far too ignorant!" |
|
18 Nov 08 - 02:21 PM (#2496935) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Joe Offer Ake, the premises of religion are primarily based on faith, but most branches of the theology built on that faith are a very rational process. I had a Theology major and a Philosophy minor in the seminary, which was the standard course of study for Catholic priests. Thomas Aquinas is probably the best-known Catholic theologian, and 800 years of theology students have been tortured with the careful rational processes of Aquinas since then. Now, although Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church, some Catholics label me a heretic when I teach Aquinas. We have a lot of very vocal Catholics like Randall Terry (above) who don't bother with those rational processes. They'd rather just scream slogans and point fingers. -Joe- |
|
18 Nov 08 - 02:38 PM (#2496952) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Little Hawk You just have not taken a look at any of the more progressive forms of spiritual philosophy, Ake, that is quite clear. ;-) You remain hypnotized by traditional religious fundamentalisms, it seems, and imagine that they comprise the totality of what is actually a tremendously rich and varied field of human thought and inquiry which at its best melds seamlessly with science and with rationality. I could recommend some reading that might help to break down your unreasoning prejudices in that regard. As for the unremarkable priest/Obama supporter controversy that has spawned this sizable thread.....WHAT a tempest in a teapot!!!! It amazes me that people would chew on this trivial incident as long as some of you have been doing here. You are engaged in building a mountain out of a molehill. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 02:46 PM (#2496960) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Mick "There's plenty of reason in religious beliefs and practices" akenaton No, I suppose you can't. But it appears to me that your response is knee jerk, as opposed to being based on having read the references that Joe gave you. Church doctrine is, for the most part, based on reason and faith. It would be helpful if responses to well thought out and referenced assertions could be based on having actually clicked the links. Otherwise the response is just knee jerked and without much value. Mick |
|
18 Nov 08 - 03:18 PM (#2496998) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Amos AH, but there is indeed a lot of reason in some religious sentiment, Ake. "Do unto others as you would be done unto" is a practical guideline. So is a reminder to look unto the lilies of the field, etc. So are hundreds of other truths and aphorisms from Old Testament, New Testament, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, Zen, and othe religious sacred writings. To translate these perfectly useful sentiments into concerns that are open to argument and amenable to reason requires only that one understand the reasoning behind his assertions well enough to make the translation. Blind faith can't serve simply because it is not shared, but there are universal concerns and universal languauge into which "religious" impulses can be translated. A |
|
18 Nov 08 - 04:15 PM (#2497067) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Lizzie Cornish 1 I don't think faith is meant to be shared, other than between one person and his/her 'God'. I have a deep faith, no-one brought it to me, at least, no-one 'earthbound'. I have no need of priests, or bishops, or vicars, nor monks or rabbis. I don't believe that any are 'nearer' to 'God' than I am, nor do I believe they have a right to judge others, or dictate to them, as this particular priest has done. I acknowledge and admire their historical knowledge, but so far as them knowing more about faith than I do, no, I don't believe that at all. No-one comes between me and my 'God'. No-one is there to tell me what I should, or should not believe. It is written in my soul and it was inscribed there when I arrived on this planet. That's all I know...and feel. And I have a terrible sorrow that faith, something which should be so personal, so strong, so inspirational, filled with hope and love, and so free, has been twisted over the centuries, to so often become divisive, excluding, spiteful, controlling, cruel, war-mongering and hateful. Churches, and Church Leaders have power. A power that has come about through fear. Fear of 'your priest/vicar/rabbi/etc being angry with you, fear of what will happen after death, fear of hell and damnation..fear, fear, fear.... True faith is about only one kind of power, and that is Love. As for abortion, those who fight for 'the unborn child' and those who fight for a woman's freedom, well, who is to say which is right. I can see both sides and neither outcome is good. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 04:29 PM (#2497081) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: frogprince "How does a "believer" make his or her position/arguments amenable to reason? Surely a believer is motivated by faith?" Do you realize how close this sounds to the hard-core fundamentalist theory that God gave us the Bible to give us truth, but gave us the geological and fossil evidence to test our faith in the truth of the Bible? |
|
18 Nov 08 - 04:41 PM (#2497094) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing. Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, and love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 04:48 PM (#2497101) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Little Hawk Bravo! Those are among the greatest lines ever written. There is nothing in this world more puffed up than the intellect alone when it is devoid of love, and it is capable of anything in pursuit of what it deems a "rational" objective (such as the triumph of one political system over another through use of a weapon of mass destruction, for example). It was the intellect that designed atomic weapons and the hydrogen bomb. Love was not involved in that process...although it may have been a helpless onlooker, I suppose. (I would assume that Oppenheimer and the others in his profession were capable of love...) |
|
18 Nov 08 - 06:19 PM (#2497184) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Oh come on! Your all wriggling! Even Mr Aquinus was wriggling! The basis of the christian faith is the "afterlife"...Reason that! The afterlife, the magic stuff, Heaven, The Christain goody bag, Mothers little helper when life seems unbearable. There are people who really and truly believe it, I know some of them. They're not fundamentalists, just ordinary folk who want a hot water bottle to take to bed with them. Most are in no way dangerous, just a little dim. They are sometimes used by obsessives as in the abortion issue. Then there are those like Mr Obama and half of Mudcat, who don't really believe it, but pick out bits of it that they think may be useful to them....Or those who just go along for the ride because they don't want to be thought a "troll" by asking the question. They know that its just a fairytale, so they try to strengthen their own phoney stance by attacking the true believers, or covering belief in layers of spurious rhetoric. The fact that America has elected a "black" president is a small battle won, when they elect an atheist president they will have won a great victory |
|
18 Nov 08 - 06:32 PM (#2497194) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton George....I'm on about real hardcore religion here not spiritual philosophy. As Monty Python says, "Thats something completely different" |
|
18 Nov 08 - 07:32 PM (#2497235) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee How, Ake, do you know that the US hasn't elected an atheist as President? Thomas Jefferson comes awfully close.... |
|
18 Nov 08 - 08:37 PM (#2497280) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Joe Offer Lizzie sez:
-Joe- |
|
18 Nov 08 - 08:41 PM (#2497282) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Amos JEfferson and Madison were both Desits; they were persuaded of the cosmic Cause point but were highly skeptical of the many efforts to organize it into groups of noisemakers down below, with good reason, too. What you are missing in Obama's statement is that commons, the grounds for our secular society's evolution, requires that mystic beliefs show their connection to practical and social considerations. In other words, regardless of the language used by the cohort of believers, it has to be discussed among those who may not so believe, and thus be translated into terms of secular benefit. Even love has a secular benefit. Compassion has a secular benefit. Ethics sensibility has a strong secular benefit. The fact that all these things can be also found embedded in mystic dictates is outside the point. This the requirement of dialogue imposed by the separation of Church and State, which Jefferson, at least believed in most strongly. A lot of minority religions around at the time, such as the Baptists, agreed firmly, because it saved their versions of faith from being overwhumped by majority sects such as the northern Congregationalists, for example. A |
|
18 Nov 08 - 08:44 PM (#2497284) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow One thing that should unite both sides should be a determination to ensure a situation where no woman feels she has no choice but have an abortion when she would sooner continue with the pregnancy. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 08:49 PM (#2497287) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Lizzie Cornish 1 "I think both sides are right. Somehow, we need to achieve a balance. -Joe-" Yes, you're right, Joe. But in both sides, the outcome is heartbreakingly sad. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 08:54 PM (#2497290) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Al Whittle Of course we pick out the useful bits of Aquinas! what virtue would there be in picking out the useless bits. the most brilliant nicking of ideas came in James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist where he nicks all of Aquinas's take on the nature of reality to make a theory of aesthetic appreciation. What I was saying, Ake, was that theres no real shortage of reasoning in the Catholic faith. ( I wasn't insulting you - I don't do stuff like that) However you DO need to be equipped with the strength of mind to say - I'm sorry mate (to the Pope) the actual conclusion that you have drawn from all this reasoning, is total bollocks. God would not want me to act like an idiot, so somewhere along the line, you've got the sums wrong. however the beauty of Aquinas's thought processes is something we can all enjoy. You don't have to be a nun whipping herself, and going shagless and believing that the moon is made of green cheese to appreciate it. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 09:59 PM (#2497316) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Amos In a separate dialogue on the question of the unborn versus the pregnant, one good Idea, I think, is to leave the discussion up to those who have direct connection with the experience. I can guarantee you that no fat middle aged white man is in ANY position to decree at which moment in the mulitplication of cells there is a human being, as distinguished from a clump of lively cells. A |
|
18 Nov 08 - 10:01 PM (#2497318) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow Or of course the strength of mind to say the reverse of that, if the reasoning seems to you to point that way. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 10:23 PM (#2497328) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow those who have direct connection with the experience. We've all had direction connection with the experience. Otherwise we wouldn't exist. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 10:31 PM (#2497331) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee I haven't. I willed myself into existence. |
|
18 Nov 08 - 10:32 PM (#2497332) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Don Firth "The basis of the christian faith is the 'afterlife'..." Granted that most devout Christians believe there is an afterlife, but the same holds true for most of the world's religious and spiritual beliefs. Where, Ake, did you get the idea that this is uniquely Christian, or the "basis" of Christian faith? And, by the way, how can you be so sure there isn't? Given the latest findings and speculations in such things as quantum physics and string theory (have you read Michio Kaku's Other Worlds?), I would be loathe to say what might become of my self-awareness (some would call this my "soul") when I shuffle off this mortal coil. I might just step "next door." I figure I can't lose. If there is some kind of afterlife, it will be a whole new adventure. If there isn't, I will have no self-awareness with which to be disappointed. Don Firth |
|
18 Nov 08 - 10:58 PM (#2497342) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Amos Rapaire, So what? We ALL willed ourselves into existence. Just don't try to regress to the beginning of that particular incident.... A |
|
19 Nov 08 - 03:05 AM (#2497408) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Joe Offer Ake sez: The basis of the christian faith is the "afterlife". I dunno, Ake. I think it's a belief in God, a Prime Mover, a Source of Life, an Ultimate Good. Something like that. Heaven and all that stuff follow after that, but the primary "leap of faith" is believing in God. -Joe- |
|
19 Nov 08 - 05:43 AM (#2497466) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Well Joe, I think its the old ego takin' over again. Most people don't like to contemplate a world in which they no longer exist.....its too desolate. Its the idea that one day....very shortly in real time...they will be completely forgotten about, that worries them. Religion is basically an attempt to control the natural process of birth, life and death for the benefit of self and God is useful as a provider of that control, which of course is beyond the ability of man. I see the whole charade as very unhealthy psychologically, and a root cause of many of "isms" which hold back the freedom and happiness of humanity |
|
19 Nov 08 - 05:50 AM (#2497471) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Sorry, T forgot to add that believing that one can control the natural cycle, requires the suspension of reason....Ake |
|
19 Nov 08 - 10:47 AM (#2497633) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Amos The part of it that is charade, I concur, is unhealty. But the substitute certainty which you seem to endorse of life as a lump of temporarily animated matter whose self-awareness i just an accident of mechanical and electrical combination is equally lethal. A |
|
19 Nov 08 - 06:18 PM (#2498023) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Joe Offer Well, Ake. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd change your words slightly: "Religion is basically an attempt to explore and understand the natural process of birth, life and death." That's my perspective from my experience as a person who has religious faith. On the other hand, I guess I could say that while your description of religious faith does not fit MY experience, it may be a fairly accurate description of the faith of SOME religious people. It seems to me that in almost every denomination, there are two very different perspectives that coexist very uncomfortably. Some people are comfortable with the unknown, with the "grey areas," and they belong to a religion in order to explore the mysteries of life. Other people see things mostly in black and white, and they belong to a religion because they seek "absolute truth" and control and all the other stuff that goes along with that perspective. I have to say that I've been having a hard time with the Catholic Church lately, because the "absolute truth" people seem to be gaining power. In my home parish for the last three years, I haven't been allowed to teach in the RCIA program that brings new people into the Catholic faith. For the last two years, I was not invited to teach - and this year my pastor removed me from the program altogether, and refused to explain his reasons for doing so. He's been a good friend in many ways, but he acts like he's afraid of something every time I ask about being permitted to teach. Last night, I attended a scripture class conducted at the offices of the diocese, and it was dominated by the "absolute truth" people. Several minutes of the class were spent lamenting the fact that there are people (like me, for example) in the Catholic Church who do horrible things like voting in favor of Obama and gay marriage. I've taken several courses sponsored by the same office in the past, and they have always been very good; but this one seems to have been taken over by the know-nothings. And the cars in our church parking were leafletted with anti-Obama propaganda before the election, and it seems we have been taking one backward step after another. But yesterday, I spent the afternoon with four of my favorite nuns. One of them, 80-yr-old Sister Mercedes, gave me a rather stiff talking-to when I sounded like I was losing heart. And the night before, I was at a Jimmy Crowley concert with some wonderful, elderly Irish nuns. If I didn't have these nuns around me so much, I think I would lose heart. Sometimes, I think they should ordain all the nuns as priests and bishops and see what would happen to the Catholic Church - I suspect there'd be some changes made, all for the good. Oh, and I have to say I was encouraged by the fact that the South Carolina diocese spoke against the priest who wanted Obama supporters barred from communion. I was also encouraged by my own (rather conservative) Sacramento diocese, which spoke against a priest who seemed to be telling an Obama supporter to get her car out of the church parking lot. The diocesan spokesman said, "Either way, we don't condone any of this, and we certainly wouldn't criticize any parisioner for who they voted for." (story here (click)) So, I'll take the advice of my lovely friend Sister Mercedes, and not give up. -Joe- |
|
19 Nov 08 - 07:13 PM (#2498068) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Don Firth My apologies. The title of Michio Kaku's book (one of many he has written) is not Other Worlds, but Parallel Worlds. Dumb boo-boo, especially when the book is sitting on the bookshelf right in front of me. Carry on. . . . Don Firth |
|
19 Nov 08 - 07:17 PM (#2498072) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow If you need a bit of encouragement about the Church, Joe, have a look at Sister Cecilia Gaudete, aged 106. Live in Rome, last time she voted was for Eisenhower. This time she voted again, for Obama. |
|
19 Nov 08 - 08:33 PM (#2498118) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Amos Keep the REAL faith, Joe. It will make you nothing but friends among those who honor friendship. And amongst those who do not, why, it is their loss, and their lesson to learn in their own turmoil. A |
|
20 Nov 08 - 02:00 AM (#2498205) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Barry Finn Joe, you're a good man. It doesn't take religion though it helps for some people but when you know that your heart is telling you you're right it'll take more than some priest or bishop to move you from that position & that's realy where your faith is, it's in your heart. You can ask religion to guide you & your faith but if you follow your heart you'll never be in the wrong position & I've never known you to be anything but in a position of good. Wish I could say as much for myself but then I have no religion but I do have faith Barry |
|
20 Nov 08 - 02:47 AM (#2498211) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Al Whittle Probably my best friend ever is a catholic. he says that when he prays he feels as though he is talking to a good friend. I think he would say that being a member of the church helps him to live a good life - and he has led a very good life. He finds himself at odds with church, over the loss of the latin mass - probably his views are more conservative than a lot of the people here. I think he would understand the priest who tried to turn the election into a single issue campaign. he wouldn't agree, but he would understand. The best advert for a church is the way its members conduct themselves. |
|
20 Nov 08 - 11:30 AM (#2498508) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Mick Joe, you and I have had a rather up and down ride for a long while. But I feel it is important for you to know something. I guess I could do this with a PM, but I think a public affirmation might be better. In my mind, you would have been a wonderful priest, one that I would love my children to be taught by. In your writings about the faith we share, I find wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. And most importantly, I find that my own struggles within our church are shared, and I learn much of what is required for me to continue my own attempts to get folks to see the man from Galilee as I see him. My belief is that the Lord is pretty angry at much of what is being done in his name. I want to share something that was written to me in a PM. It is from one of our finest, most thoughtful, 'Catters. I won't share the name because I don't have the permission, but this gentle soul is one whose opinion is always valued by me. He said: I believe, Joe, that those nuns, and folks like you, are the ones responsible for that kind of thought process. I believe you do more to touch the strings of the instrument of understanding and good works than all of those "know nothings" combined. We have those among us who seek to be seen as wise. Then there is you, who is just understood to be wise. I was at church the other day, and was accosted by an otherwise nice woman who asked me how I could vote for a "baby murderer". I responded that I was voting against one. She looked at me, very puzzled, and wanted to know what I was saying. I asked her about the thousands of babies killed in a war that was started on false pretenses. Her response was, "Oh, well .... they aren't even American". So I asked her if her position was that only American babies should be saved? Then I asked her if that was her understanding of what it means to be Catholic and Christian? When you run into this stuff, Joe, when you see this kind of unthinking rhetoric, how can we get discouraged? Yours is the truer vision of what it means to follow the teachings of the gentle Aramaic speaker. Yours is the correct understanding of the mysteries of faith, that it is about taking the basic training and then applying it as we walk the path. Folks like me don't have the answers, just the desire for the search. We look to folks like you to help us along when we get a bit sidetracked. Don't get discouraged, just get more committed. In the end, it will be worth it. We may not always agree on the best way to do things here on Mudcat, but rest assured you are respected and seen as a thoughtful man. You have the right of it, not the black and white, right and wrong, know nothings. Stay the course, Mick |
|
20 Nov 08 - 05:45 PM (#2498825) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Joe Offer Gee, Mick, thanks a lot. It really makes me feel better. But then, I read this kind of crap: Educated Catholics have sown dissent and confusion in the Church, claims bishopUniversity-educated Catholics are to blame for the crisis in the Church and the growth of secularism, according to the bishop charged with tackling the decline in Mass attendance.telegraph.co.uk By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent Last Updated: 9:12AM GMT 18 Nov 2008 (excerpts) The Rt Rev Patrick O'Donoghue The Rt Rev Patrick O'Donoghue, the Bishop of Lancaster, has claimed that graduates are spreading scepticism and sowing dissent. Instead of following the Church's teaching they are "hedonistic", "selfish" and "egocentric", he said. In particular, the bishop complained that influential Catholics in politics and the media were undermining the Church. While not naming names, he suggested that such people had been compromised by their education, which he said had a "dark side, due to original sin". Prominent Catholics in public life include Mark Thompson, the BBC's director general, and Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister. Bishop O'Donoghue, who has recently published a report on how to renew Catholicism in Britain, argued that mass education has led to "sickness in the Church and wider society". "What we have witnessed in Western societies since the end of the Second World War is the development of mass education on a scale unprecedented in human history - resulting in economic growth, scientific and technological advances, and the cultural and social enrichment of billions of people's lives," he said. "However, every human endeavor has a dark side, due to original sin and concupiscence. In the case of education, we can see its distortion through the widespread dissemination of radical scepticism, positivism, utilitarianism and relativism. "Taken together, these intellectual trends have resulted in a fragmented society that marginalizes God, with many people mistakenly thinking they can live happy and productive lives without him. "It shouldn't surprise us that the shadows cast by the distortion of education, and corresponding societal changes, have also touched members of the Church. As Pope Benedict XVI puts it, even in the Church we find hedonism, selfishness and egocentric behavior." The bishop said that Catholic graduates had rejected the reforms made in the second council of the Vatican, which introduced fundamental changes in issues such as liturgy and doctrine. "The Second Vatican Council tends to be misinterpreted most by Catholics who have had a university education -- that is, by those most exposed to the intellectual and moral spirit of the age," he said. "These well-educated Catholics have gone on to occupy influential positions in education, the media, politics, and even the Church, where they have been able to spread their so-called loyal dissent, causing confusion and discord in the whole church." Mr Thompson, who went to Oxford University, has this month been embroiled in a row over broadcasting standards in the wake of the scandal over offensive telephone messages left by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand. Under his command the BBC broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera, considered blasphemous by many Christians, and was forced to pull a cartoon called Popetown set in a fictional Vatican over concerns it would cause offence. Mr Blair, also Oxford-educated, became a Catholic last year but has received Mass for years. As Prime Minister he oversaw the introduction of laws on gay rights and abortion which the Catholic church opposed. The bishop said that influential Catholics had set a bad example and corrupted the faith of those who had not gone to university. "This failure of leadership has exacerbated the even-greater problem of the mass departure from the Church of the working-class and poor," he said. "For example, the relentless diatribe in the popular media against Christianity has undermined the confidence of the ordinary faithful in the Church." [snip] A prominent theologian responded to the bishop: "Quite what constructive purpose could possibly be served by such irresponsible and wholesale scapegoating of the educated, I have simply no idea." I've wondered about this for a long time. I got an excellent Catholic education, and a thorough grounding in traditional Catholic theology and thought. In the aftermath of the long reign of John Paul II, there has been an upsurge of mindless neoconservatism; and Catholics who received a Catholic education have become suspect, labeled "liberal heretics," and generally treated as second-class citizens. This applies also to priests and nuns educated before 1980, who are often considered to be the worst of the "heretical influences" in the Catholic Church. The traditional religious orders are all suspected of heretical liberalism, and the "fair-haired boys" are those associated with neoconservative religious orders that are mostly less than 30 years old. It's frightening. -Joe- |
|
20 Nov 08 - 05:54 PM (#2498832) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: frogprince Well, Joe, it's almost a relief to see that us protestants don't have a monopoly on anti-intellectualism. Sad, though, in anyone's church. |
|
20 Nov 08 - 06:11 PM (#2498844) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Rapparee My wife, unlike me a product of Catholic education through her Master's Degree (I'm one only through my BA), made the very astute comment that "The Catholic Church a big mistake: it taught us to think." Judging by some of the priests that have come out of the seminary in the past few years I'd have to say that it has stopped doing that. I have to wonder if they have read "The Documents of Vatican II" or the works of social theologians or even recognize the worth of the laity in the church. Some seem to be so awed by being a PRIEST!! that they are falling into the trap of believing that the laity are somehow lesser beings. Sad, in a way, as I just started going to church on an irregular basis again a few years ago. If I get pissed off enough I'll stop and I won't come back the next time. |
|
20 Nov 08 - 06:26 PM (#2498864) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Penny S. Joe, that is so disturbing. It is not just the Catholics. My parents met at a Congregational Church in Brighton, on the south coast of England. Like a lot of Non-conformist churches, its buildings included a lot of teaching space, and they received a good religious education there from a thoughtful and educated minister. some years ago, they went back on a visit, to find it much changed. Instead of a thoughtful educative sermon, there was an emotional address working up the congregation, and instead of thoughtful hymns with educated ideas in the words, choruses and worship songs which did not address the mind. I could write more, but there does seem to have been a movement not only to appeal to those who find thinking difficult - people who obviously should be reached out to, don't get me wrong, but to do so by denigrating the more educated as somehow not right for Christ. Who benefits from making the churches intolerable places for those with minds? Penny |
|
20 Nov 08 - 06:48 PM (#2498884) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Ed T Saw this on another forum, and felt it was a perspective worth posting: Originally Posted by nicolepsy, on City-Data.com When it is really this one that matters. Live for today! Gets me thinking that alot of people who love the bible think either too much of the past (ex: what happened in jesus' time) or too much about the future (heaven). that could distract someone from enjoying their current time on earth. Think about it. When those religions were developed, life for almost everyone was pretty bad. Hope for a better life after death was an effective way to motivate the average person to believe in the religion and to motivate good works on Earth. There was also widespread belief in spirits, ghosts, demons, etc., so a realm of souls and spirits was something which most persons already believed in. The Christians just fine-tuned the idea a bit (versus Judaism, which teaches of no heaven for human souls). That's about it. It's part of the mythology of the religion. |
|
20 Nov 08 - 06:55 PM (#2498890) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Amos Heretical liberalism is, perhaps, all in the perspective of the conservative proclaiming it as anathema. To put it another way, if liberalism in its best sense -- the free respect of your fellow man without prejudgement -- be heretical, then let us make the most of it. A |
|
20 Nov 08 - 07:03 PM (#2498900) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Ed T Another interesting perspective (abridged) on the after life from Visvaldis, on the City-Data.com forum: "This life has no meaning.... The afterlife is everything.... It will be cool in heaven. I just hope that god doesn't allow any French, or any other non-english speaking foreigners in the American sector...." |
|
20 Nov 08 - 07:05 PM (#2498901) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: frogprince "Heresy" simply means any belief rejected by the authorities in power. |
|
20 Nov 08 - 07:57 PM (#2498932) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow Wouldn't worry too much about the odd bishop. It takes all sorts to make a Church. That's what the word "Catholic" means, after all. |
|
21 Nov 08 - 02:56 AM (#2499115) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Its like I said Joe,The acceptance of orthodox religion demands the suspension of reason. The moment we rationalise religious faith, we become hypocrites......or atheists. My advice?....I wouldn't be so condesending, but personally I get great comfort from the constancy of the natural cycle...and knowing my tiny piece of space in that cycle. The true believers deny what is obvious to all who reason, as in the age of our planet and many other things, that is what is meant by testing ones faith. I have a degree of respect for those who can do it, but none for the pickers and choosers. You're a very intelligent man Joe, and you are always going to have to struggle against what your brain is telling you. I think thats what the Bishop was trying to say from his viewpoint. Maybe he was also trying to say that humanity should start to reclaim spirituality,the power which is within us all but which has been rationalised almost to extinction....Ake |
|
21 Nov 08 - 05:22 AM (#2499161) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Paul Burke You'd think the right- wing Telegraph would get the details right: Mr Blair, ... has received Mass for years. You don't receive Mass- you hear it. What you receive (or more commonly take) is communion. |
|
21 Nov 08 - 07:00 AM (#2499204) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: goatfell they've already got the knives out and he's not even in the job, pity he was black, i wonder if they would say these things if he was white |
|
21 Nov 08 - 02:53 PM (#2499534) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Joe Offer Well, Paul, the wording hasn't been completely been worked out. In general, priests no longer "say" Mass and parishioners no longer "hear" Mass - collectively, they "celebrate" Mass. Individuals "attend" Mass, for lack of a better word. One can say that priests "celebrate" Mass, but individual parishioners do not. At least in the United States, Catholics say they "receive" communion - and outsiders say Catholics "take" communion. Catholics call the bread a "host," and outsiders call it a "wafer." Catholics go "to THE seminary" to learn to become priests, while Protestants go "to seminary" to learn to become ministers. I'm sure usage is quite different in the UK. I used to give a little lecture to new Catholics on terminology - they usually got a kick out of the differences. Of course, if they enede the Lord's Prayer with "for Thine is the kingdom...," that was a dead giveaway that they were Protestant spies. But back to Obama and Goatfell's comment, I think race could have something to do with it. I thought it interesting that Randall Terry's puppet bishop referred to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama." I also thought it interesting that Randall Terry and his bishop and others refer to Obama categorically as "pro-abortion." In every Obama statement I've heard on the subject, he has been careful to state that he does not think abortion is a good thing. Maybe that's why they just label him "pro-abortion," and don't ever quote him to back up their allegations. But yeah, I think that in some cases, the "abortionist" label is just a cover-up for racial hatred. Many conservative Christians seem to think the election of Obama is a horrible evil that has been inflicted upon the United States, possible because we are no longer a Christian society. Oh, and don't get me started on the unholy alliance between fundamentalist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants. Protestant fundamentalists still refer to the Catholic Church as the "whore of Babylon" - but they do it quietly now, because they want to appear to be friends with the Catholic fundies. -Joe- |
|
21 Nov 08 - 04:35 PM (#2499595) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow I don't doubt there are a fair number of racist Republicans around who hate the thought of a black man in the White House (as against decent Republicans who would see that as a good thing to set against their disappointment at their man having lost - tbe reaction expressed by McCain and for that matter Bush). But it seems an unnecessary assumption that this in itself relates very much to the abortion issue. If it had been a white presidential candidate who was identified as being pro-abortion, would they have escaped this kind of attention? |
|
21 Nov 08 - 04:55 PM (#2499604) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Joe Offer Well, McGrath, the hatred directed at Obama seems particularly intense. He seems to be far more moderate than Bill or Hillary Clinton, but he's been depicted as the personification of evil. Yeah, I think part of it is racist - even from those who call themselves churchgoing Christians. -Joe- |
|
21 Nov 08 - 05:31 PM (#2499625) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow "He seems to be far more moderate than Bill or Hillary Clinton," And, it would appear, far more able to understand and empathise with people who disagreed with him on abortion - as evidenced in this impressive (and lengthy) extract from Audacity to Hope printed in Time Magazine, which I remember linking to in a Mudcat threads a couple of years back. |
|
21 Nov 08 - 05:33 PM (#2499630) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Amos PRotestant SPIES? What, trying to find out if your were lobbying the Almighty? A |
|
21 Nov 08 - 08:14 PM (#2499699) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: CarolC On the subject of the possibility of a racist element, a couple of years ago, I read something that was written by a white, fairly right wing Christian, in which he said something along these lines... "Christians vote for Republicans and Black people vote for Democrats". There definitely seems to be something like that going on with reference to Obama. Some people seem to have difficulty accepting his Christianity, or to think his Christianity isn't real Christianity, because he's black. |
|
22 Nov 08 - 02:55 AM (#2499848) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Al Whittle Christianity is such a wide term. Unfortunately its no real guarantee of being a nice person. You can't help but wonder how it slipped Jesus's mind while he was on the Mount to say (just as an afterthought):- Oh and by the way you lot! Stop being arseholes! Yes, I know he said other things that might have led people to that conclusion - but I think he needed less ambiguity on the point. |
|
22 Nov 08 - 05:33 AM (#2499893) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Priests don't give communion to non Catholics, anyway...what's the big fuss?...Another mountain out of a molehill! |
|
22 Nov 08 - 05:40 AM (#2499895) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Al Whittle well the big deal is obviously that it means a lot to catholics - recieving communion. And if someone in authority is going round saying I won't let you take communion if you voted Democrat, it could influence the vote. basically its not an idea the Democrats would want to catch on. Or many Catholics, I would think would agree to the priest telling them which way they had to vote. |
|
22 Nov 08 - 08:50 AM (#2499971) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: CarolC The big fuss is that the priest in question was denying communion to Catholics. Which for Catholics who voted for Obama, I would imagine would be a very big thing. |
|
22 Nov 08 - 10:17 AM (#2500008) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: GUEST,TIA The whole point of Mass is communion. No communion = not really Catholic. The priest is essentially kicking Obamam supporters out of the church. Not a molehill. |
|
22 Nov 08 - 03:08 PM (#2500203) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Joe Offer As far as I can see, the denial of communion to Obama supporters isn't widespread - but the printed anti-Obama propaganda seems to have been distributed everywhere among American Catholics (usually without official approval) - and the literature strongly states that it is a serious sin to even vote for Obama. Catholics who have committed serious sin are not permitted to receive communion unless they have repented - which would mean they would have to repudiate their support of Obama and THEN go to confession. Since the literature is so insidious, I think it would be good if the bishops would refute it strongly. I don't think that's going to happen, because then it would give the appearance that the bishops support Obama, and they don't want to give that impression. The most prevalent Catholi anti-Obama literature I've see is the Randall Terry stuff - and Terry looks on what the bishops said about voting as appearing to encourage Catholics to vote for Obama. But as far as I can see, among Catholic clergy, it's only few extremists who have taken any action against people for their voting preferences. And hey, every group has extremists. We even have them at Mudcat. It's a byproduct of a free society. I said above, "I think that in some cases, the "abortionist" label is just a cover-up for racial hatred. Many conservative Christians seem to think the election of Obama is a horrible evil that has been inflicted upon the United States, possible because we are no longer a Christian society." I see that in my mother-in-law, who is 93 and the daughter of Polish immigrants. She's not particularly concerned about the abortion issue - it's the Muslims and homosexuals and the "browning of America" that scare her. She is very afraid that something terrible is going to happen because of the election of Obama, and she's lost a lot of sleep worrying about it. She's Catholic but not particularly religious, so there doesn't seem to be a religious aspect to her fear of Obama. But I see the same kind of fears in other older people who are more religious; and for them, religion has become a partner to their anti-Obama fears. My wife the chiropractor says that studies show that as people get older, the more sophisticated front part of the brain begins to shut down, and the more primal rear part becomes dominant. It becomes harder and harder for people to suppress the fears that center in that rear part of the brain, and that's why many older people seem so fearful. Reflecting on that, it seems to me that much of the racial fear we see in people is primal and uncontrollable. You see a very few people who are willful, hateful racists, and they span all age groups. But there are large numbers of very nice people who have deep-seated racial fears, and society is not going to overcome those fears simply by passing laws against racism and labeling these people racist. Beyond that, I think a lot of the strength of the conservative movement in our country is built on people's fears - listen to the radio talk shows, and you'll see what I mean. HOWEVER, if the Obama presidency is as successful as I hope it will be, eight years of exposure to a black president may do a lot to heal the deep-seated racial fears of our society. He may even be able to dispel some of the deep-seated fears of "liberals" and "socialists" that have been part of American culture since long before the days of Joe McCarthy. Barack and Michelle Obama are both extremely attractive people and they also seem to be very nice people. Besides, both are very inspiring public speakers. I just love to hear them speak, and I think a lot of people feel that way. I love to hear Hillary Clinton speak, too - but a lot of people won't agree with me on that. Anyhow, I think that Barack and Michelle Obama are the best possible couple to be the first black president and first lady. I think that at one time in my youth (when Richard Nixon was continually running for national public office), I heard a discussion about how it might be a sin for a Catholic to vote Republican. I wonder if that thought will ever come to the minds of Catholics again. I'm hoping to hear a completely different tune from Catholics in 2012. If Obama is as successful as I hope he will be, maybe Catholics will go back to being identified as Democrats [as God ordained it to be ;-) ]. -Joe Offer, who was brought up to believe that Good Catholics are Democrats- |
|
22 Nov 08 - 04:40 PM (#2500263) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Won't it be grand when so many people have intermarried, that humans all become the *same* colour at long last. And when all 'religions' have stopped preaching about sin, hell, fear and damnation, as no-one believes the outpourings any longer, for they have found faith, instead of this thing called religion, which divides people off into 'teams' of 'them' and 'us', when there is only 'we' One Race One Faith "I love you when you bow in your mosque, kneel in your temple, pray in your church. For you and I are sons of one religion, and it is the spirit." - Khalil Gibran One World I think that Barack Obama, more than any other political leader around at this moment in time, has the power to change this world for the better. It's a huge job, and he won't be able to do it alone. I also think that many people realise that fact, and, be they catholic, jew, protestant or donkey, many of them have never been so determined to join one man in his dream for a better world. Any man, or woman, who is deliberaly stirring up hate about such a man, should be ashamed of themselves, but to do it 'in the name of God' beggars belief. |
|
23 Nov 08 - 06:40 AM (#2500601) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Dear Lizzie (non patronising "dear"). Do you think Mr Obama's candidature would ever have been endorsed by the Democratic Party if he really represented "progressive change". Mr Obama is a supporter of the corporate capitalist system and the profile of his administration will certainly reflect that. There is no meaningful change that can be effected on that system, other than complete distruction; and the financial wizards of capitalism are already half way to achieving that destruction on their own. The Clinton Dynasty will be the "new" face of America, while Obama becomes mired in the swamp of domestic financial meltdown and civil unrest. How long before the cities start burning? Who knows, but this recession is no mirage and having a "black" president will not keep the children from starving any more than a "white" one would...Ake |
|
23 Nov 08 - 01:20 PM (#2500624) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Amos Do you think Mr Obama's candidature would ever have been endorsed by the Democratic Party if he really represented "progressive change". Certainly. As to the rest of your progostications, ake, it is a pity you are not the type to eat your words in due course. A |
|
25 Nov 08 - 02:55 AM (#2500940) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton Come on Amos, if that were the case, why did they not promote someone with real progressive policies?.....why are they so afraid of "socialism", even after the financial disasters of the "right"? And don't take such a huffy tone, we're all friends here I hope, although we have different opinions. When I attack the system, I'm not attacking you or Alice, but when you start to become too partisan and forget about the issues, I think it should be pointed out....Ake |
|
25 Nov 08 - 03:37 AM (#2500954) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Big Al Whittle What a spiffy plan! We all point out each others faults. The more aware and dialectically pure can point out everybody's faults. A bit like those criticism groups Mao used to organise. We all sit in a circle. We all confess what we've done wrong. And then we execute the ones who are daft enough to cough up. Works for me. |
|
25 Nov 08 - 04:28 AM (#2500980) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton From today's Scotsman. "The last shall be first and the first shall be last. You don't need to be a Christian to get the message.You do need to be a visionary to see tough times as a God given oppertunity" If there are such visionaries in the Democratic Party, Why do they fill Mr Obama's administration with so many remnants of a failed And discredited past? |
|
25 Nov 08 - 04:38 AM (#2500989) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Leadfingers 200 |
|
25 Nov 08 - 04:39 AM (#2500990) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Leadfingers Bugger ! You just sneaked in there Ake ! |
|
25 Nov 08 - 09:43 AM (#2501153) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio From: Amos Ake: That's a bit like asking why the Titanic didn't just steer AWAY from the iceberg. You're making comments about a job of work you would not be able to handle, but you have a head full of fine notions about how it should be done. There's a world of difference between making changes in the real world and making them up in our head. A |
|
25 Nov 08 - 10:30 AM (#2501196) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Paul Burke I wonder if the offending priest will be refusing to accept dollars in the collection plate from Obama supporters? No taxation without redemption! |
|
25 Nov 08 - 12:55 PM (#2501347) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: akenaton What a crackin' metaphor Amos.....the USS Titanic..wish I had thought of it...:0) Unfortunately, the icebergs were quite some time ago,the bows are down and the stern almost perpendicular. Its almost pitch dark, but I can just make out two little figures grimly clutching at the stern rail and calling out to the masses in the water...."Don't worry Mr Obama will save us".....Ake |
|
25 Nov 08 - 05:10 PM (#2501541) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: PoppaGator "Here at St. Anna's Episcopal Church, we believe that Jesus died to take away our sins, not our minds." ~ Fr Bill Terry I know it's very difficult for an ex-Catholic to join a different Christian denomination (i.e., Protestant), especially anyone of Irish descent, but the Anglican Communion is worth consideration by anyone thinking about resuming church attendance after a few decades' absense. The liturgy is very familar, but the hardass attitude is completely absent, and a progressive political viewpoint is not only accepted, but regarded as the intelligent norm. "All the ritual, none of the guilt." |
|
04 Dec 08 - 11:13 AM (#2507688) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Amos "All of the ritual, none of the guilt." Why does this strike me as going to a Thanksgiving feat where they serve Tofu Turkey? I am all for dispensing with guilt, mind you, but I think it ought to be dispensed with for REAL sins. :D A |
|
04 Dec 08 - 11:22 AM (#2507693) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow I think you probably mean "reserved for real sins" rather than "dispensed with", Amos. |
|
04 Dec 08 - 03:38 PM (#2507916) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: PoppaGator My understanding of that "all of the ritual, none of the guilt" phrase ~ which is, of course, an oversimplification ~ does not imply any lack of essential substance (as per "tofu turkey"). My thinking is more along these lines: why attach oneself to an institution that insists that certain choices one makes with a completely clear conscience (such as voting for a politically-progressive candidate) are "guilty"? I have no desire to maintain membership in an institution that condemns me for doing what I think is right! Does it not make more sense to participate in a spritiual community whose members share one's own values, or at least where one's views are acceptable as part of an inclusive spectrum? And then, if the liturgy is strongly reminiscent of what's been familar since childhood, so much the better... |
|
04 Dec 08 - 04:37 PM (#2507988) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: Amos Actually, McGrath I thinnk the sort of institutionalized and socialized guilt used by communities (often in church groups, for example) should be dispensed with for "real sins". Individual remorse for doing actual harm is quite sufficient for most purposes, and if no actual harm has been done, then no remorse OR socialized guilt need apply. A |
|
04 Dec 08 - 05:06 PM (#2508023) Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion From: McGrath of Harlow I'm not too sure what institutionalized and socialized guilt means. Sounds pretty unpleasant. Of course there is collective wrongdoing, such as promoting or colluding in social injustice of one sort or another. Individual remorse for doing actual harm isn't really sufficient, if it doesn't lead us to try to do what we can to undue the harm, or balance it in some way. What's important isn't that people should feel guilty, it's that they accept responsibility for their actions. |