Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Pelosi and the Pope
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, April 17, 2008

This will be interesting:
Catholic members of Congress who publicly support the right to abortion will trek to Nationals Park Thursday for a Mass celebrated by a pope who has said such lawmakers should not receive Communion.

Leading these lawmakers, some of whom have repeatedly complained about remarks by Pope Benedict XVI and a few bishops on the subject, will be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the government's highest-ranking Catholic and a supporter of abortion rights. Nowhere in her remarks or her actions this week has she referred to strains with the new pontiff.

[...]

Benedict's stance on abortion and Communion has been painful for elected officials who inhabit the troubled zone where Catholicism and their political beliefs intersect.
Who will "win" this one? My feeling is, it won't be Pelosi, but I've been wrong before.

Regardless of your stance on abortion, if it is opposed to that of the church, it is rather hard to argue that the church is required to sanction your belief through communion if it has said it won't. And again, whether you agree with the church in that regard, that's its stance.

So I have to wonder why Pelosi want to try to force this issue?

Katherine Jean Lopez, at The Corner pleads with Pelosi to rethink this:
As a sister Catholic, I have a plea to Nancy Pelosi this morning: Don't do it. Don't make the papal Mass about you or a political statement. The Vatican wants bishops to shepherd pro-choice Catholic pols — you can't be a pro-choice Catholic pol — and Pelosi (who was at dinner last night) insists on receiving Communion. If the pope, unknowingly perhaps, gives her Communion, the image will be a damaging one — in one picture, undoing what he's trying to ingrain in Church leaders. She knows this is a big deal. I know it means something to her — but she should have this fight another day.

It's a tough thing. No one wants to judge. No one can know another's soul. But we know voting records and rhetoric and we know what it taught. And I just don't want to see a beautiful Mass become a political statement. We'll see. God bless all who will be at Nationals stadium today, Democrat, Republican, everyone.
Will she refrain from making this "all about her", or as a true and spoiled child of the '60s, attempt to force the issue?

I'll be interested to find out.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
When did the Pope say that elected officials who disagree with the church’s stance should not receive communion? As Pope, Benedict has veered away from some of the more extreme statements he made while Cardinal. He, for instance, moved from opposing Turkish membership in the EU to saying it would be a good thing. Perhaps once becoming Pope God enlightened him, or perhaps the responsibility of actually leading the church has made him more diplomatic.

In any event, this is part of the age old church and state argument. Should the church demand Catholics follow church policy in their political choices (including war in Iraq)? Should the church separate out the politics of its members from their personal behavior and faith? Over centuries the church has drifted from the former to the latter. Pelosi is reflecting American political values of separation of church and state and individual liberty, while the Pope (or was it then the Cardinal) reflects a belief that the church should be primary. In the long run, I think the church has already lost that debate.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I’m not Catholic (I’m not even Christian), but I think that it is clearly the Church’s duty to state its beliefs clearly, and to say that those who do not hold with those beliefs are not members of the Church in good standing. And in that vein, it is certainly reasonable for the Church to withhold communion or other sacraments until the heretic (for there is no other reasonable word) repents and returns to the fold. Besides, there is a word for Catholics who don’t agree with the Church doctrines: Anglicans. Perhaps Pelosi, Kerry and other Catholics who disagree with the Church’s teachings should consider, as one of my best friends’ wife has done, changing churches.

But no, for Pelosi, it is all about her: either someone bends to her preferences, or they are wrong, and often evil or at least immoral. So if Pelosi can make this a stunt, she certainly will.
 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
June 2004
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Too bad the Pope didn’t have bouncers.

Anyway, for Catholics, repentance with God is suppose to be private affair. So the Church is slow to act because it technically doesn’t necessarily know if Pelosi has recently repented on the issue or not. She would be expect to not go for Communion if she still was supportive of abortion on her own accord. The Church will act if they feel the public act is an attempt to sway other Catholics to pull away from Church teaching.

So, my guess is if we would never find out if Pelosi took communion or not, she would probably recieve it unless she made a supportive statement just before Mass or Communion. The other extreme, is if she asserted in the press she still plans to recieve Communion but still supports abortion, she wouldn’t be given Communion.

Anything inbetween is grey with respect to what might happen. As I said, the Church is slow to enforce discipline directly on followers leaving to be a private matter unless the follower’s behavior is intentionally to pull people away from the Church.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
In any event, this is part of the age old church and state argument. Should the church demand Catholics follow church policy in their political choices (including war in Iraq)? Should the church separate out the politics of its members from their personal behavior and faith? Over centuries the church has drifted from the former to the latter. Pelosi is reflecting American political values of separation of church and state and individual liberty, while the Pope (or was it then the Cardinal) reflects a belief that the church should be primary. In the long run, I think the church has already lost that debate.
Ah yes, your arrogance knows no bounds does it? Are you presuming now to dictate church dogma to the Pope?
Have you been reading articles on this? talking to many Catholics? Consulting with people in Washington? Making yourself an expert on the subject through reading and thinking? Clearly you don’t get it and need to read some more.

This is an issue of FAITH, not a political stance to be negotiated. The Catholic church isn’t bound by our Constitution so there is no Church/State issue here from the Church’s perspective.
These are Church ’rules’ which supposedly are reflective of the laws that a soul will be judged by after death. There’s no negotiation with that view.
If she breaks the rules established by the Church, she breaks the rules, it’s that simple. God sorts it out in the end.

The Pope could make a point, and SHOULD, make the point of walking right on by her at the alter. And then she’d look pretty damn foolish.
If on the other hand he allows her to take communion then he won’t have much of a leg to stand on with his followers WORLD WIDE regarding the Church position on abortion.
So, for all involved, she’d be wise not to have a high noon gunfight with the leader of umpteen million members of the Catholic faith.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It was probably a bad idea for the Pope to have mentioned anything about communion for pro-choicers. I know he opposes abortion, but why make the opinion so explicit and confrontational? Is he going to persuade people this way? Probably not.

It just wasn’t very politic to come out one way or another on this issue, and it risks angering a number of American Catholics. With the Europe Catholics growing less religious daily, I’d wonder if forcing a wedge issue on the last zone of strong Catholic communities in the Western world is smart.
 
Written By: Zeno
URL: http://sosoonnomore.blogspot.com/
On quick reflection....

Yes, she could go to confession beforehand and get forgiveness for her prior transgressions, and in that sense, she’s eligible to receive communion from a purely technical standpoint. But the intent of confession is not just to be forgiven for your transgressions, but to be genuinely repentant of them with the presumption you aren’t going to run out and commit them again at the first opportunity.

This is an issue on the most basic layer, of the relationship between Nancy and God. If she ’lies’ in confession to simply receive absolution for sins past, knowing she intends to commit them again that is a matter to be sorted out when she reports to the pearly gates for her harp and wing allowance.

And technically, since confession is supposed to be a private matter.....it shouldn’t be known by the Pope if she is in fact in a state of grace at the time of communion.....

So.....
the only way he will refuse her, or should....is if she makes a proclamation about her lack of repentance beforehand.


My first post I suppose was actually reflective of my dislike of Congresswoman Pelosi, and, if I was a good Catholic, which I’m not, I’d probably have to go confess my feelings before I could take communion again.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Are you presuming now to dictate church dogma to the Pope?
Nope, just noting that in the past centuries the enlightenment era has decreased the ability of the Pope to control the individual behavior of Catholics. Pope Pius IX in his famous ’syllabus of errors’ tried to take a stand against modernism, capitalism, and rampant individualism to protect the authority of the church. Since then, the Church has increasingly lost control of its members, even to the point that despite admonitions from priests across the country, Italy voted by a large margin to legalize abortion. American Catholics use birth control quite frequently, and in the grand battle between enlightenment reason/individualism and the Roman Catholic church, the church has modernized and given considerable ground already. I’m simply noting I expect this to continue.

Because if you know the history of the Catholic church, you know that it is very political — and often power and politics has trumped faith. Remember Pope Alexander VI?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
When did the Pope say that elected officials who disagree with the church’s stance should not receive communion?
John Paul II made the comment during his papacy, and Pope Benedict did it in his day serving under JPII.
Should the church demand Catholics follow church policy in their political choices (including war in Iraq)? Should the church separate out the politics of its members from their personal behavior and faith?
this is ridiculous.

I’m a Roman Catholic. I do not agree with all of the teachings of my Church, but I would never do anything which would harm the Church for personal gain. The pride behind that is sinful.

If you are a member of a Church, you adhere a certain philosophy. You do NOT cherry pick what is convenient for you to do and drop what’s too difficult. A person’s political life is not separate from his/her personal life. They don’t magically become another person. If you are trying to push political change which the Church finds to be a mortal sin, then you are being sinful yourself: you are breaking your own communion with the Church, and take to communion in light of this, knowing full well the Church’s stance, then you are purposefully blaspheming against the body of Christ.

Stick to politics, Professor Erb. You muck that up enough as it is.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Nope, just noting that in the past centuries the enlightenment era has decreased the ability of the Pope to control the individual behavior of Catholics.
And yet the His Holiness’s dictates are still law within Mother Church.

If The Pontif says "No communion for those who support abortion", then they should NOT get communion, and frankly any priest who gives them communion risks being defrocked...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
more extreme statements
He was quoting Canon Law. It may be extreme to you — but it is the law of the church.
Should the church demand Catholics follow church policy in their political choices (including war in Iraq)?
That is addressed by Cardinal Ratzinger in my link.

Short answer: no - unless it deals with abortion and euthanasia.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Nope, just noting that in the past centuries the enlightenment era has decreased the ability of the Pope to control the individual behavior of Catholics.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Church law. The laws aren’t crafted on the reality of whether or not they’ll be adhered to, they’re crafted on the evaluation of what is right and what is wrong in an absolute sense based on scriptural interpretation, not on a poll of what the current membership thinks is right or wrong.

The fact that historical Popes had armies marching hither and yon means nothing in this context, and the fact that they have lost that secular ability means nothing. The Pope still ordains what is and is not Church practice, and taking communion while outside a state of grace appears to be the same today as when I learned it over 40 years ago.

The Pope tells the faithful what the rules are, he doesn’t have enforcers because you’re supposed to enforce the rules on yourself, and when you can’t restrain yourself and you break the rules, you ask a priest to intercede with God for forgiveness via confession so you can restore your state of grace.
The fact that not every Pope has been a man of God and employed his power in a worldly fashion is no reflection on this Pope.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"Don’t make this political" Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Telling Pelosi not to come isn’t political??? K Lo isn’t anti-politicizing she’s just on the other side. How is it that the folks who want to deny pro-choice catholics communion are the ones crying about making communicon political?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
How is it that the folks who want to deny pro-choice catholics communion are the ones crying about making communicon political?
Because they are knowingly attempting to flaunt Chuch Law, merely to get their names in the papers and make news, and take attention away from His Holiness.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Erb, you are the Florence Foster Jenkins of intellectual discussion.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
Link didn’t show in the last comment.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=61203314
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
Florence Foster Jenkins ...
OMG! That was just funny (and screamingly (no pun intended) appropriate).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
It just wasn’t very politic to come out one way or another on this issue, and it risks angering a number of American Catholics.
Somehow I don’t think the Church cares about appealing to both sides on this issue, much like their stance on murder in general.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
I don’t really see anyone denying my point, though people do raise a few tangents. People have different views on the role of the Pope. I wonder why all you Catholics don’t take more seriously the statements by this Pope and the last one about Iraq...especially if Joel says the political and the personal are linked. I guess it depends on whether or not you agree with the Pope, eh? And the idea that church law is just scriptural interpretation in reflecting on absolute morality, and thus devoid of political calculation, is simply historically absurd. You need to study your own church history a bit.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I don’t really see anyone denying my point
I’m sorry, was anyone talking to you?

Shhhhh. Men are talking...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I have to admit I agreed with the first response from JPM100 on this set of responses - the church won’t get into the details of her beliefs as long as she isn’t.

Apparently however, having read this -

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0408/Pope_resolution_stalled_over_human_life_language.html

She is getting into her conflict with the Pope. I think that if she follows this up with communion the Pope should excommunicate her. Make it clear that she isn’t following Catholic doctrine (which she is free to do) and move on... it’s a political issue because she made it one and the Pope should respond.
 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://
"...you are the Florence Foster Jenkins..."

Thanks for that. I Googled her, just out of curiosity. Youtube has several videos with her singing. Wikipedia has a biography. Amazing. And, as McQ says, eerily appropriate.

Coincidentally, a local establishment I frequent has an open mic every Thurs. (tonight). I hope this is not an omen.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
How is it that the folks who want to deny pro-choice catholics communion are the ones crying about making communicon political?
Which of us is trying to deny pro-choice Catholics communion?
I’m merely repeating what I learned in Catholic school growing up.

It’s none of MY business if Nancy Pelosi goes up to the alter, bows her head and responds "Amen" when the Pope says "Body of Christ" (if it’s changed since I last had communion, my apologies...)
I’m not trying to deny her anything.
That literally is between her and God.

I am suggesting that if you aren’t the Pope or a select member of the hierarchy, you don’t get to determine what is or is not Church practice.
And Congressmen, or Congresswomen, from San Francisco, are numbered in the mass that don’t get to determine Church doctorine.

If Peolosi is not in a state of grace she’s supposed to deny herself communion. I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that hasn’t changed since I learned it, since the very act of placing the host on your tongue is literally supposed to encompass the miracle of ’transubstantiation’. Literally converting the host into the Body of Christ. Not something the Church is going to take lightly even if the average person takes it lightly every sunday.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I think that if she follows this up with communion the Pope should excommunicate her.
I can just hear Howard Dean now, "Will no one rid us of this meddlesome priest? Yeeeeaaaaaarggggggghhhhh!"
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
And the idea that church law is just scriptural interpretation in reflecting on absolute morality, and thus devoid of political calculation, is simply historically absurd
You need to study your own church history a bit.


At the risk of suddenly acting like a practicing Catholic....

It has not a thing to do with the secular activities, or secular behavior of the Catholic Church in the past. It has nothing to do with the political history of the Church.

While the Church has altered it’s view of many things in the face of evidence (like a heliocentric cosmos....), I doubt that such a fundamental concept as the instant of life and the instantiation of the thing called a ’soul’ is going to change from the time the kid is conceived to the time the kid hits the air just because of political expediency HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. In this much I agree with Church doctorine, it’s not a CHOICE, it’s a CHILD.

The church still fights birth control, and you think they’re going to change their view on abortion? The two are fundamentally, and justifiably so, tied at the root.
I don’t really see anyone denying my point,
Again, this is a fundamental matter of faith, not a matter for you to logic into a form that makes you happy. No one denies your point about past Pope’s practicing secular behaviors because it’s IRRELEVANT. This has nothing to do with Iraq (What, Scott try to twist a discussion to IRAQ again?). The Pope can express his view on Iraq, that’s not the same as the CHURCH’S view of COMMUNION. The Pope understands IRAQ is not part of church dogma Scott, it’s his OPINION.

Pope/Church not the same thing Scott, any more than President of United States EQUALS United States.

Pelosi either believes what the Church indicates are accepted practices or she doesn’t believe what she practices and cherry picks her version of Catholicism. That doesn’t change the rules.
I refer to people like her as ’convenient’ Catholics. They practice the parts that are convenient to practice. When I realized I am one, I stopped practicing.



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
When did the Pope say that elected officials who disagree with the church’s stance should not receive communion?
2004. Next question?
As Pope, Benedict has veered away from some of the more extreme statements he made while Cardinal. He, for instance, moved from opposing Turkish membership in the EU to saying it would be a good thing.
Or maybe the situation - and/or Turkey changed?
Perhaps once becoming Pope God enlightened him, or perhaps the responsibility of actually leading the church has made him more diplomatic.
Ah, I was wondering when the leftist contempt of religion and faith would creep in. Or, perhaps I am just a bitter old rube "clinging to religion," eh?

You and the Magic Negro are two of a kind.
In any event, this is part of the age old church and state argument.

Well, yes it is. Gee, Scott. Your command of the obvious is staggering. And you make it sound so pretentious, too. I guess that eduction of yours payed off. You can sound like a pompous fool in suitable language.
Should the church demand Catholics follow church policy in their political choices (including war in Iraq)?

Teaching, Scott. Church TEACHING. The church teaches that abortion is a grave evil. Always. No exceptions. No room for "conscience." However, it allows for the "just war" which is a matter of conscience. And it recognizes that a isolated atrocity does not totally undo the justification for a war.

Nice try, though.
Should the church separate out the politics of its members from their personal behavior and faith? Over centuries the church has drifted from the former to the latter. Pelosi is reflecting American political values of separation of church and state and individual liberty, while the Pope (or was it then the Cardinal) reflects a belief that the church should be primary. In the long run, I think the church has already lost that debate.
Here is where you are just about as dumb as a sack of hammers.

Seperation of church and state. Note the "seperation" part. The church can’t remove Nacy Lugosi from office. They cannot take from her the role of SOTH.

Neither, though, can the Congress, POTUS, SCOTUS, or any comission tell the RCC what is fit for them to teach, who may or may not be a priest, deacon, bishop, or even a member of the church.

That knife cuts in two directions, Scooter. Nancy Lugosi and her association with the RCC is purely voluntary. She need not belong to the RCC. She need not be a Christian. It is unconstitutional to ask her if her membership in the RCC will color her ability to be a congressman, or speaker (Thoough that was ignored by liberals when Justice Thomas was being confirmed.) It his her business. Private business.

HOWSOGODDAMEVER...

The converse is true as well. The Bishops - the pope, her bishop may toss her right briskly out on her ear. Or deny her communion. Leave her husband and marry without an annulment? Out on her ear. Teach Heresy, and proclaim herself a priestess? Hasta la bye-bye. Aid in the performance or procurement of an abortion?

Later days, baby.

And it is just right and fair that they do this, because I don’t know of a single politician who doesn’t jump at the opportunity for that photo-op of them piously striding into church with that bible in their hands. You wanna use that church att4endence as a campaign tool? You wanna dance?

Weeeeelll ... hush my mouf. I do believe that fiddler is wanting his pay. You want to use the church to advance your political career - expect to kiss the ring. Don’t want to kiss the ring?

Well, your course is obvious.

But even if you take that course, the sovereign Roman Catholic Church has the right to tell you "You are no longer a Catholic in good standing. Back away slowly from the communion rail, lady, and put the rosary down."

And that is just the name of that tune. And I know statists like yourself will get in a perfect snit that the Church isn’t subordinate to the state, but, of well.

SEPERATION of Church and State.
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://

I am suggesting that if you aren’t the Pope or a select member of the hierarchy, you don’t get to determine what is or is not Church practice.
Well, that’s obvious.

We can darn well have opinions about it though, even if we’re not Catholic!

Oh, and the church knew Galileo was right, they didn’t change their position until later, not because of the knowledge, but the politics. You see, Galileo argued that if the scripture and our knowledge of the world are in contradiction, then our interpretation of scripture is wrong. To the church, this was dangerous. Martin Luther had argued that individuals have a personal relationship with God and can interpret and understand scripture on their own. He called the Pope the "anti-Christ" because he wanted the church to get in the way of his connection to God. Galileo’s argument sounded like individuals could alter and question scripture due to their knowledge of the world, rather than have the church hierarchy make that call. Galileo was politically naive; since he knew many in the church, including the Pope who had been a proponent of Galileo’s earlier (before he became Pope) understood his argument, he assumed they would follow knowledge, not politics.

This was during the thirty years war, though, the war that would end Catholic dominance in Europe. If Galileo had stayed in Padua he might have gotten away with it, but Florence and the Medicis were too politically important.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
However, it allows for the "just war" which is a matter of conscience.
Both Popes have made it clear that Iraq is not a just war, and they have condemned it. Any Catholic who just ignores that and supports the war, while otherwise saying the Pope’s teachings should be followed, is a hypocrite. Perhaps a Christian in name only? Since you can’t really read the New Testament and think that there is any way a true Christian could support the policies in Iraq.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I would note the following conundrum here in this country with regards to the the abortion issue -

When we don’t want ’the fetus’ and legally abort ’it’, it’s a ’choice’.

When we DO want ’the child’, and some criminal causes it’s death prior to birth, legally ’IT’ suddenly becomes A PERSON.

You can’t get any more convenient about how you view life than that.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
And the point of your last two posts Scott? Was what?
That there were wars, that the Catholic church was involved? That they suppressed information, knowledge, burned heretics?
What is your point and what does it have to do with the teaching of the Catholic church about the sanctity of Communion and the self denial that those who are not in grace are supposed to exert ON THEMSELVES in not taking it when they are not worthy?
We can darn well have opinions about it though, even if we’re not Catholic!
You’re right! you can have your opinion. I have my opinion about you as a college professor.
AND?
That will have exactly what effect on your tenure at the UofM?

Finally it’s not about Iraq Scott, okay? So you can stop bringing that up any time.
If I didn’t know better I’d swear you were getting just a tad emotional about this.


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Scott - show me the science that proves, or disproves, the teaching that the spark of life, the soul, enters the cells, egg and sperm, at the instant they join.

When you can do that there will be no need for faith, and the Church can adjust, or not adjust, it’s teachings on that basis, just as it eventually swapped from a geocentric universe to a heliocentric one when science proved the doctorine was clearly wrong.

How likely is that sir?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Any Catholic who just ignores that and supports the war, while otherwise saying the Pope’s teachings should be followed, is a hypocrite.
This is complete ignorance.

I have already linked what the Church teaches about war versus abortion. You obviously can’t be bothered to educate yourself about something outside your bias.

Typical Erb - typical idiot - spouting ignorance.

Let me spell it out for you in the words of Cardinal Ratzinger less than a year before he became the Pope:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia ...There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Now you may have disagreements about the teachings of the Catholic Church — but I’m not going to put up with Erb distorting it like he does with everything else.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Naw JW - he wants to get us on the Iraq track where he’s comfortable.

This whole Communion thing, and faith....it’s not about Iraq, or American Decline, or Global Warming, so he’s a little confused about what to say.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
JWG, rationalizing rejecting very clear spiritual guidance from the last two popes on war — they not only spoke out, they’ve been unequivocal. But you find a way to rationalize rejecting that. Typical. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc., all find ways to rationalize neglecting their faith in favor of their political inclinations. Killing an unborn is wrong, but slaughtering the born, well, that’s no big deal.

When you can do that there will be no need for faith, and the Church can adjust, or not adjust, it’s teachings on that basis, just as it eventually swapped from a geocentric universe to a heliocentric one when science proved the doctorine was clearly wrong.
The very idea science could disprove a doctrine or show it wrong is what was at stake for Galileo. The idea that science can be used to prove a doctrine wrong is what Galileo wanted, and where the church, after much trying to resist, finally got.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
... so he’s a little confused about what to say.
Not that that has ever shut him up before.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
tag like I can’t resist -
Scott, you’re like Hitler, all you want to talk about is the "the war".
JWG, rationalizing rejecting very clear spiritual guidance from the last two popes on war — they not only spoke out, they’ve been unequivocal. But you find a way to rationalize rejecting that. Typical.
JH Christo....where in this thread has JW stated he rejects their guidance?

Let me help him some more JW - from the text you linked -
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
There ya go Scott, from the guys who wear the funny hats themselves.
You can disagree with the Pope about waging war, but NOT about the sanctity of the Communion. Okay? Is that clear enough, or should we consider YOUR opinion some more?

(pssssst....not about Iraq.....)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Looker, you’re not listening to what I’m saying. I’m not talking about communion. I’m talking about so-called Christians rationalizing rejecting not only the Pope, but the basic teachings of the Christian faith. It’s utter hypocrisy. Read what was posted carefully and recognize that two Popes have said this is not a just war, and not along the lines of the exception stated above. If you support this war, you may as well support abortion. It’s still killing.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
(pssssst....not about Iraq.....)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Looker, you’re not listening to what I’m saying. I’m not talking about communion
Communion...which IS what the thread is about.....and how forwarding abortion should prevent you from taking Communion.

One more time....a direct quote...
For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.
You see that you can disagree with the Pope on this issue and still be eligible to receive Communion without risking your immortal soul whereas you can’t do that on the issue of abortion because abortion isn’t about the Pope’s opinion, it’s about the Church’s teachings.

Church Teachings, Pope’s opinion. Surely you can comprehend the difference here.

(pssstt....it’s STILL not about the war)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’m talking about so-called Christians rationalizing rejecting not only the Pope, but the basic teachings of the Christian faith
Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
You’re dancing around the fact that two Popes have condemned the war in Iraq on unequivocal terms, and have stated that it is not a just war. You’re rationalizing support of the slaughter of humans, and ignoring your own church. I’m just saying, it looks pretty hypocritical to me. (Oh, and my comment is about the war — the hypocrisy of condemning abortion but ignoring condemnation of the war, rationalized by a theological song and dance, so it IS about the war).

What happened to love your enemy as yourself, be kind to those who would harm you, turn the other cheek, the meek will inherit the earth, etc. Or are those simply the teachings of someone far too naive for this world?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
What happened to love your enemy as yourself, be kind to those who would harm you, turn the other cheek, the meek will inherit the earth, etc. Or are those simply the teachings of someone far too naive for this world?
Dr Erb, this is one of your saddest attempts…..
What happened to love your enemy as yourself,
Yes, please note Christ used the word “Enemies”…He did not say they are or will be your friends, only that we are to love them. Christ acknowledges the idea of “enemy” we are not all going to be brothers in this life.
be kind to those who would harm you, turn the other cheek,
Jesus said “turn the other cheek”, to those who “Pluck your beard”, i.e., humiliate you. Not those about to KIL you and also please note it is about things happening to YOU, not third parties. Jesus did NOT say, “When the maniac says, ‘I shall kill the family next door’, Amen, amen I say to you, give him your knife and check to see if the coast is clear for him.” Jesus’ admonishment is for those who would humiliate YOU, not about those, such as the Nazi’s or AQ or the Taliban, which would KILL you or others.
the meek will inherit the earth
They inherit the Earth…someday, in the mean time we are to go out and preach the Good News and make the World over God’s Name…and along the way that will lead us into conflict with others; those others may become our enemies. Jesus didn’t say give up or allow Evil to triumph. Finally Christ DIED, for our Sins as a part of God’s Plan for the World. He went to death, because His Death expiated our sins and His Resurrection was a symbol of God’s Love and the Truth of His Son’s Message here on Earth. The fact that Christ was passive in His Death is not necessarily the message that God has for us, but was a part of His Plan for us here. So, just because Christ died passively does not mean we must passively face evil…Christ turned water into wine and raised the dead, does that mean that to be fully Christian we must also do the same? Christ was sinless and committed no sin, does that mean that we, as Christians must be born sinless and remain so? No…Christ’s Life was an example for us, but not something that we must duplicate, exactly.

Jesus commands us to Love one another to include our enemies…”love” does not mean we can fight him, only that we must love him. I can love AQ or the Taliban, and pray that they cease their actions and even pray that they become Christian….I can feel sorrow and pity that they are so consumed with hatred that they can find it necessary to kill people indiscriminately. all the while whilst shooting at them. I am to love them, not roll over for them.


 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Very sad, Joe, that you dance, weave and try to somehow pretend that you can rationalize launching a war of aggression in Iraq (note: the Iraqis were not trying to kill you) and avoid tough moral issues. Sad, sad, indeed. The way you add words that aren’t there (not about humiliation alone, not making exceptions for those who want to kill you, those are your additions), and ignore the fact that we started the Iraq war...amazing...
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
1) Dr. Erb, IT ISN’T ABOUT IRAQ
2) Note, you sad man, I didn’t say the "enemy" had to be threatening MY life...please note, I said:

and also please note it is about things happening to YOU, not third parties (emph added).

Please is it hard to grasp "third parties"...that would include the PEOPLE OF IRAQ, or Poland, or even Zimbabwe......
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
No, Joe, you can’t justify killing the people of Iraq to save the people of Iraq. By your logic we could launch massive wars of aggression against any country whose government we judge to be unfair to their people, killing, destroying societies, all because we think the government is bad. There is a word for that: EVIL.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Hey, Dr. Scott, since you insist on talking about wars and Iraq, and the church teachings, mayhap you need to find your Bible and dust if off, open it to the Old Testament and read it. There you will find the real answers. I can’t believe the twisted crap you’ve been spewing all over this thread.
 
Written By: Cindy
URL: http://
Mr Erb,
- Can I call you Junior Bendy? - it seems more appropriate on this thread, although you don’t have the skills of Old Bendy...

It’s all about Faith -
I had Faith that when the invasion occured, even though I didn’t think it was a good idea, that there was a very real possibility that Saddam was in fact working to produce weapons of mass destruction. I also had faith that his removal would remove this threat to my children.

Even if he later didn’t the war was when it was started justified in my desire to protect my children from him.

Once the war started the question becomes what is the best course for the war. Some might think that the best course is to pack up tomorrow and leave. Others like me that that such a course will lead to the deaths of millions of innocents. I have faith that by staying the course there will be the loss of fewer innocent lives, that if by staying in Iraq we help the Iraqi’s build a new and better society with equality for All at it’s core that it will lead to a better future - such a belief is in keeping with MY FAITH - I can recieve communion regardless of your lame attempts to twist and bend reality o junior deciever.
 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://
btw, Junior Bendy before you try to twist the writings of the good book again you might want to talk to someone who has studied it, or perhaps study and learn a little more about "turn the other cheek" and it’s related passages:

http://www.csec.org/csec/sermon/wink_3707.htm
 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://
Either someone has appropriated Scott Erb’s name to troll with, or this really his his most pathetic anti-war attempt yet. In either case, please, y’all keep poking him so I can keep laughing.

 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
I wonder why all you Catholics don’t take more seriously the statements by this Pope and the last one about Iraq...especially if Joel says the political and the personal are linked. I guess it depends on whether or not you agree with the Pope, eh? And the idea that church law is just scriptural interpretation in reflecting on absolute morality, and thus devoid of political calculation, is simply historically absurd. You need to study your own church history a bit.
You DO understand the difference between Church Doctrine and Church Stance, do you?

It is Doctrine that all life is sacred, killing is wrong, and abortion is de facto murder.

You will notice, however, that the War is the Vatican’s Stance as a Political Entity, and NOT as a matter of Faith. Which is why many catholics are free to respectfully disagree with the pontiff.

Nice try though
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
You DO understand the difference between Church Doctrine and Church Stance, do you?
LOL!

Obviously he doesn’t for heaven sake!

Or if he does, then he’s simply being intellectually dishonest, which should come as no surprise either.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
you can’t justify killing the people of Iraq to save the people of Iraq. By your logic we could launch massive wars of aggression against any country whose government we judge to be unfair to their people, killing, destroying societies, all because we think the government is bad.

So it would be wrong to kill 40,—- plus Frenchmen in the Liberation of France? So it was wrong and evil to defeat the Taliban, we killed innocent Afghanis there, too. So, in your opinion it is evil to fight, if ONE INNOCENT person is killed?

And BTW, read Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars, the section on humanitarin interventions and get back to...that’s secualr, man of the Left’s view...He’d task you strongly too.

Truly, Doc you have no MORAL leg to stand on in this fight...even though this thread is very dead, now.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Oh, and my comment is about the war — the hypocrisy of condemning abortion but ignoring condemnation of the war, rationalized by a theological song and dance, so it IS about the war).
Okay incredibly obtuse, intellectually dishonest, college professor .

You walk in, virtually clueless about anything related to the Catholic faith, other than the long history of secular activities it’s representatives participated in, and pontificate (appropriate usage) on the subject of Communion and state of grace. In the process you manage to take a few swipes at Christians, and presumably people of ’faith’ and then you attempt to tie it all to the WAR IN IRAQ.

Let’s review....
The post is about Nancy Pelosi, taking Communion, whether or not she should, and whether or not the Pope ought to pass her at the alter because of her stand on abortion.

It has to do with an intellectual/moral discussion of whether or not Nancy Pelosi will adhere to the strictures of her chosen faith as established by the Church, which condemns abortion, and leaves no room for discussion as to whether it is right or wrong, or subject to a given Papal and/or secular interpretation.
It has ZERO (or had ZERO) to do with people condemning abortion and NOT condeming ’the’ war.

I thought it was a bit of a joke that people noted you had a tendency to attempt to steer posts toward the topic of Iraq.
Damned though if you didn’t attempt to find a way to turn a discussion about Holy Communion and Abortion, and whether or not a politician, Speaker of the House of Representatives would embarrass herself, or the Church, into a link to your fixation on the war in Iraq.

You truly outdid yourself yesterday, and that’s going some.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

You walk in, virtually clueless about anything related to the Catholic faith,
You call names when your argument is weakest. You seemed to not understand the history of the church when you claimed it was science that led to the move away from the heliocentric universe, or seemed to want to say it was all about interpretation and not about politics. The history of the church to the present is steeped in politics.

I’ve been studying a lot about the church because almost every other year I am involved in taking students, usually about 40, to Italy, including the Vatican. We have seminars on the history and politics of the church, as well as other things involving art, music and architecture. There’s a lot I don’t know, but you through out words like ’clueless’ and ’dishonest’ with such a lack of ethical reflection that I have to assume it’s just emotions being expressed. I can’t take that seriously.

And what’s funny is that you seem really upset that I talked about the POPE’S teachings on Iraq (so Iraq is fair game for this topic, since it is about the Pope — comments to posts always find different tangents). You seem really bothered about it, so much so that you are mentioning Iraq more than I am. Funny.

I think Christians and Catholics can support the war, and certainly can disagree with the Pope. But to do so in a way that completely disregards the Pope’s teaching (dismissing it as irrelevant) and doesn’t even reflect on the moral issues, even ridiculing the idea of bringing them up, shows a very narrow perspective. But hey, you guys can call names and hurl insults, so you must be right!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
so you must be right!
You’re right, we are.

You’re in your own little Erb centric universe, like some black hole, desperately trying to drag topics into your gravity well so they can orbit around you.

Your angle on the discussion was wrong.
Where you tried to take it was wrong.
The fact that you dragged in 1000 years of political history to discuss established religious doctrine was wrong.
Assuming I would get upset about anything about the Pope was especially wrong.
Which part of "I don’t practice" escaped your laser like gaze?

It had nothing to do with ’the war’, or ANY war, until a professor, from the University of Maine, named Scott Erb, decided to make a link between
the post and the war in Iraq.
shows a very narrow perspective.
The narrow perspective is yours, demonstrated by the fact that you just couldn’t keep yourself from talking about Iraq when the topic was about as far removed from Iraq as could be managed.

If McQ posted an article about making omelettes, you’d discuss the price of eggs in Iraq, and how they’ve gone up since Saddam was ousted, and how Iran is controlling the flow of chicken feed in and out of Iraq, and how any efforts of the United States to teach the Iraqis to make American style omelettes is wrong and imperialistic.

Get a life.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Your angle on the discussion was wrong.
That’s your opinion. Believe it or not, I am under no obligation to simply accept your opinion. But you’re certainly free to hold it. You just don’t like it when a discussion doesn’t go the way you want it to, and other posters don’t behave in a way you would dictate, it seems. Well, that is your problem.

BTW, did you notice the National Defense University, a Pentagon institute, called the Iraq war a "major debacle." The Pentagon and the Pope agree! Whoops, I sure I am not staying within Looker’s protocols for this discussion.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Doc, let me get this straight 4,000 dead and 1% of GNP=Debacle...what would terms would you think they’d use to describe WWII, 50% of GNP and 400,000 to 500,000 dead? Me, I’d say that the NDU authors might want to take a deep breath and step back from the word processor...just from looking at the first line, but then that’s just me.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Whoops, I sure I am not staying within Looker’s protocols for this discussion.
Yes, you are...and also demonstrating what an arrogant prig you can be when you get your @ss handed to you on a platter.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Yes, you are...and also demonstrating what an arrogant prig you can be when you get your @ss handed to you on a platter.
In your dreams, looker. You just get really mad and call names when you can’t counter an argument. That’s OK. But I’m far more polite and kind to you than you are to me, yet you call me arrogant. Perhaps you need to think more carefully about who is saying what here.

Joe, you seem to be ignoring the cost to the war in Iraqi deaths and the situation in Iraq. Perhaps you need to look at the National Defense University report. They don’t share the myopia you demonstrate. I’ll take the Pentagon institute studying war over your interpretation.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Oh, Joe, even if you limit the costs to those we incurred, they are very high. Remember, you don’t compare it to other wars, you compare it to the costs we’d have had if we hadn’t made this horrendous and disastrous choice to launch an offensive war.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Both Popes have made it clear that Iraq is not a just war, and they have condemned it. Any Catholic who just ignores that and supports the war, while otherwise saying the Pope’s teachings should be followed, is a hypocrite. Perhaps a Christian in name only? Since you can’t really read the New Testament and think that there is any way a true Christian could support the policies in Iraq.
Show me, Erb, where the popes have proclaimed that ex cathedra, and made it subject to excommunication, whether ferendae sententiae or, latae sententiae.

Didn’t think do.

Thanks for playing! But we do have a few consolation prizes for you. McQ, show him what he’s won....
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
Show me, Erb, where the popes have proclaimed that ex cathedra
Silly boy, that was never my claim. You’re trying to change subjects to avoid confronting the issue. Thanks for playing, but your effort to distract was pathetically obvious.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider