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 takes communion at Papal mass
Posted by: McQ on Friday, April 18, 2008

Wow - what a surprise:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she felt very comfortable taking Communion during the Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI, who has said supporters of abortion rights should not receive Communion.

“Communion is the body of the people of the church coming together,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference after returning from the Mass. “I feel very much a part of that.”
Of course with all the pretending any Democrat has to do, it's certainly no surprise that Pelosi felt comfortable with defying the church because she felt entitled too.

And if there is any question as to the Pope's position:
Benedict's spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, later said the pope was not setting a new policy and did not intend to formally excommunicate anyone. But Lombardi added that politicians who vote in favor of abortion should refrain from receiving Holy Communion.
So, as most expected, Ms. Self-absorbed defied the Pope and the church, had her way and feels very good about it.

Perfect.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Not to defend Pelosi or anything, but…
Of course with all the pretending any Democrat has to do, it’s certainly no surprise that Pelosi felt comfortable with defying the church because she felt entitled too.
Are you suggesting that if one is pro-choice, one is/must pretend to be a Catholic and pretend to take communion?

I have a Catholic friend who is pro-choice and she takes her family to mass every Sunday where I’m sure she receives communion. Is she “pretending” to be a Catholic? Is she “pretending” to take communion? Or does it only apply to Democrats? I’m not sure of my friend’s political persuasion, but I know her to be quite liberal on social issues where it stands to reason that her opinions on many social issues differ from the Pope and her local priest.

You’ll have to forgive my heathen ignorance on the matter. Quite frankly, I think the whole idea of getting down on your knees and being fed wafers from robed men is all sorts of freaky in the first place.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Are you suggesting that if one is pro-choice, one is/must pretend to be a Catholic and pretend to take communion?
Nope.

Cheers!
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Ah, the turn of a phrase....


hehehhe
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
The Pope’s quote is in reference to politicians because of their visibility and community leadership role. So I don’t see where the Pope’s comments apply.

Ahhh the real point of Pogue’s thread
You’ll have to forgive my heathen ignorance on the matter. Quite frankly, I think the whole idea of getting down on your knees and being fed wafers from robed men is all sorts of freaky in the first place
I wonder what Pogue has to say about kneeling on a prayer rug 5 times a day every day?
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I have a Catholic friend who is pro-choice and she takes her family to mass every Sunday where I’m sure she receives communion.
No offense to your friend, but if she doesn’t believe in the tenets of her religion, why does she practice it?
 
Written By: Boogs
URL: http://bornandbred.blogspot.com/

I have a Catholic friend who is pro-choice and she takes her family to mass every Sunday where I’m sure she receives communion. Is she “pretending” to be a Catholic? Is she “pretending” to take communion? Or does it only apply to Democrats? I’m not sure of my friend’s political persuasion, but I know her to be quite liberal on social issues where it stands to reason that her opinions on many social issues differ from the Pope and her local priest.
Your friend really ought to examine her conscience and talk with her priest about whether she ought be refraining from receiving the Eucharist due to the fact that "her opinions on many social issues differ" from the Church’s established teachings, specifically on abortion. Catholics can differ in opinion on matters that the Church has not declared settled, but abortion (as well as euthanasia) is not one that the Church considers possible for practicing Catholics in full communion with the Church to disagree on.

From a letter sent from Cardinal Ratzinger (then prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith) to Cardinal McCarrick and made public in July 2004:
Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).
...
Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).
In this letter, then-Cardinal Ratzinger makes it clear that if a Catholic persists in materially supporting, voting for, or otherwise cooperating with the evils of abortion or euthanasia, and refuses to remove himself from participation in the Eucharist, it is the obligation of their pastor to deny them the Eucharist. Despite what Nancy Pelosi may think, it is not just "the body of the people of the Church coming together", but is predominantly the partaking of the faithful of the Real Presence of Christ, and it is sinful and scandalous that an individual who actively supports the slaughter of innocents would presume to consume the Body and Blood of Christ. It is our obligation as Catholics to attend Mass on at least Sundays and holy days, and to faithfully participate in the sacraments. Part of that faithful participation includes knowing when your soul isn’t fit to receive the grace imparted through the sacraments, and thus abstaining from presenting yourself until you have confessed and come back into full communion with the Church.

Also, on the matter of "ordinary" folks who "just vote" for candidates in support of abortion, the Holy Father had this to say:
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
 
Written By: becca balmes
URL: http://
Many Catholics lean left. And I would suspect that Democrats like Pelosi wouldn’t mind seeing schizm or hijacking that brings Catholics over to the Democrat party.

In fact, the Catholic Church is about the only negative thing they see about massive influx of Catholics from the South even though short term they are partners on this. If they could somehow subvert or trivialize the North American Catholic Church, then it would be all gravey.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Ah, the turn of a phrase....


hehehhe
Yeah right, Bithead… that was quite the zinger from McQ, huh? You are easily amused, aren’t you? Hurry along now… Before your cat runs off with your favorite ball of string.
I wonder what Pogue has to say about kneeling on a prayer rug 5 times a day every day?
All sorts of freaky X5. Good enough?
No offense to your friend, but if she doesn’t believe in the tenets of her religion, why does she practice it?
Got me? But that is her decision, isn’t it? Which is kind of the whole point.

It may come as a surprise to many of you, but there are millions of Catholics that don’t believe or follow every edict laid down by priests, bishops, and Popes. Yet they continue to believe and follow fundamental Catholicism. Stem cell research comes to mind.

And if McQ isn’t suggesting what I thought he suggested,
Nope
Then what is he suggesting?
…felt comfortable with defying the church because she felt entitled too.
Is one not allowed to defy church leaders? Is one not entitled to?

If so, then it would be strange for someone who claims to believe in “big tent” libertarianism to not believe in “big tent” Catholicism.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
And forgive me, Becca. I stopped reading your comment after,
Your friend really ought to examine her conscience…
As if you have any idea of my friend’s conscience.

Like anyone should tell my friend, a social worker who helps poor families on a daily basis, that maybe she just isn’t Christian enough.

You can take that judgmental tripe and shovel it all day long. It makes no difference.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
"Communion is the body of the people of the church coming together," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference after returning from the Mass.

Wow. Does she not know ANYTHING about Catholicism???

And Pogue, do YOU understand anything about Catholicism? Your statements here very much suggest that you do not.

Not that I’m surprised or anything. Some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around something like an authoritative church. It’s just pathetic when some of those people claim to belong to such a church without having a clue what that entails.
 
Written By: Mariner
URL: http://
And Pogue, do YOU understand anything about Catholicism? Your statements here very much suggest that you do not.
Yeah, I thought I established that fact with, “forgive my heathen ignorance.” Did you catch that? Your statements here very much suggest that you did not.
Not that I’m surprised or anything. Some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around something like an authoritative church. It’s just pathetic when some of those people claim to belong to such a church without having a clue what that entails.
So, in order to go to mass, one must check their brain at the door.

I doubt I’ll ever understand Catholicism.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
As if you have any idea of my friend’s conscience.

Like anyone should tell my friend, a social worker who helps poor families on a daily basis, that maybe she just isn’t Christian enough.

You can take that judgmental tripe and shovel it all day long. It makes no difference.
Wow... that was really uncalled for, Pogue.

You brought up your friend, who I obviously don’t know, and used her as an example of how Catholics, in your opinion, should be "free" to disagree with their Church on matters of morality. You also stated that you are not yourself Catholic. I brought to your attention one of the most important documents in the Church’s teachings on this matter, written by the highest authority, recently, in regards to the exact situation brought up in the original post... and I’m being judgmental?

As someone who struggles to live up to Christ’s example, I am certainly sensitive to the struggle others go through. That doesn’t change the fact that we all must regularly examine our consciences, and that it is an integral part of Catholic life to regularly examine one’s conscience and repent of any sin. I did not say that your friend was guilty of any specific sin, just pointed out the possibility that she might benefit from a conversation with her pastor on this point.

Your friend’s work with the poor is certainly commendable, but not relevant to this point. There is no such thing as "Christian enough".
 
Written By: becca balmes
URL: http://
No offense to your friend, but if she doesn’t believe in the tenets of her religion, why does she practice it?
Got me? But that is her decision, isn’t it? Which is kind of the whole point.
What is kinda the whole point? Is your point that it’s her decision whether she will celebrate the rituals of a religion, even though she doesn’t follow its teachings?

 
Written By: Boogs
URL: http://bornandbred.blogspot.com/
So, in order to go to mass, one must check their brain at the door.

I doubt I’ll ever understand Catholicism.
Change "go to mass" with "join the military", and you sound like the Berkeley city council. Do you not see how offensive and erroneous this statement is? You don’t have to be Catholic or in the military to understand that obedience to a higher authority isn’t mindless, but in fact takes great amounts of conscientiousness, humility, and courage. It’s far easier to claim authority for yourself and ignore your own flaws.
 
Written By: becca balmes
URL: http://
So, in order to go to mass, one must check their brain at the door.

I doubt I’ll ever understand Catholicism.
Yeah that’s it...check your brain at the door. I mean St. Augustine, Aguinas, Loyola, the Jesuits..all MORONS. Stick to snark you do it better pogue...

Andyour friend, Pogue, the Pharisees tithed as did the Saducees, they did all the "right" things, and yet, they too were not truly in the Church. That’s why Christ gave them down the road...so your friend may be a social worker, she may help the poor, but that doesn’t make her a "Christian" or a "Catholic".

Certainly, if she disagree with the Church on certain fundamentals she’s not "Catholic." She might try Lutheranism or a host of other ways to worship Christ, but there are certain things that make up being "Catholic"...if you don’t buy into them, you’re not Catholic.

It’s like being an atheist...you can’t be an atheist if you believe in a Higher Power...you could be Buddhist, you could be many things, but not an atheist...it’s a definitional thing.

Sorry if that makes us judgemental and exclusionary.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
maybe she just isn’t Christian enough
She certainly is not Catholic enough if she is not following the very explicit rules of the church regarding abortion. She needs to change her faith if she cannot follow the tenets of Catholcism.

If you support abortion you CANNOT receive communion. PERIOD. There is no discussion.
You can take that judgmental tripe and shovel it all day long. It makes no difference.
It should make a difference to your friend if she really believes in what the Catholic Church teaches.

You’ve really shown yourself to be quite the fool in this thread.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Becca, I dare say you are judgmental. And saying “Your friend really ought to examine her conscience” IS judgmental on its face. Yet calling it judgmental tripe is uncalled for, but suggesting that my friend’s conscience needs examining, as if to say it is faulty, is to you perfectly acceptable.

It is one thing to say that you disagree with my friend’s position and explain why, it is quite another to suggest that – because of her position – her conscience is faulty.

I find such statements to carry great offense. Which is probably why I cannot subscribe to any given church. Waaaaay to much judging going on there.

There is no such thing as "Christian enough".
Really!?
Seems to me that people like yourself draw a line in the sand. And believing in pro-choice, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research, ect… somehow crosses that line into being not Christian enough. Not enough apparently to take communion.
Now it stands to reason that if one was on the other side of that line, one would then be least Christian enough.

At least for you.
At least for the Pope.
And apparently, at least for McQ.

If you take my meaning of “Christian enough” to mean that one can never do enough good deeds, then maybe you’re right. But now you know that it is not what I meant by “Christian enough”.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
She certainly is not Catholic enough if she is not following the very explicit rules of the church regarding abortion. She needs to change her faith if she cannot follow the tenets of Catholcism.

If you support abortion you CANNOT receive communion. PERIOD. There is no discussion.
Seems you might be in a minority, JWG.
There is a distinct gap between church teachings and American Catholics’ views on these important issues. The percentage of Catholics saying that one can be a good Catholic without agreeing with the church on abortion has risen from only 39 percent in 1987 (the year of our first survey) to 58 percent in 2005. There also are striking generational differences among our 2005 respondents. Only 44 percent of pre-Vatican II Catholics say you can be a good Catholic without agreeing with the church’s opposition to abortion. That figure rises to 56 percent among Vatican II Catholics, 59 percent among post-Vatican II Catholics, and 89 percent among Millennials. Clearly, Catholics do not feel as bound by the church’s pro-life stance on abortion as they once did.
But YOU make the call, though. Right?

You’ve really shown yourself to be quite the fool in this thread.
Right back at you, brother.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
like anyone should tell my friend, a social worker who helps poor families on a daily basis, that maybe she just isn’t Christian enough
If she’s not following the tenets of her church, then she really isn’t.

Much like you’re not really a vegin if you decide to eat a big hunk of pork for dinner every sunday, even though you’re hardcore Mon-Sat.

But that’s between her and her church to decide penalties, etc.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
No Pogue you’re making a common mistake in thinking two words are homonyms, "Judgmental" and "Judgment".....or mayhap you just like the current Leftist trope of confusing the two.

When someone says, "Your friend is not Catholic and she might want to examine her choice of churches" they are NOT being Judgmental, they are making JUDGMENT. Judgmental is what YOU are doing in insulting those questioning your friend’s Catholicism...Judgmental is where I say "You are wrong" so that I can feel better about myself.

Judgment is where we judge something..I can say John Wayne Gacey was evil. That’s not judgmental, that’s judging someone, it doesn’t say I’m NOT a sinner or that I will make it to heaven, only that Gacey is evil.

Your friend is attending a church that she does not believe in...she’s NOT a Catholic. It’s making a judgment...your friend isn’t evillllll for not being Catholic and I’m not saying because I believe in the Church’s teachings, on abortion, I am making it to Heaven and she isn’t.

I and others are simply making the judgment that when you don’t accept the fundamental tenets of your church your are NOT a member of that church.

We make judgments all the time, it’s only when someone makes a judgment with which we disagree do we like to trot out the "judgmental" argument. because in today’s society their is nothing worse than being judgmental...it’s like being homophobic or against Social justice...flexible terms with which you can beat your opponent, but having only a plastic meaning, that allows one to use them as one desires.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
While you want to make personal insults against Pelosi (PDS — you need some therapy), she was joined by many other law makers, and in fact all over the country people do as she did. I guess the knee jerk PDS causes you to have to attack her over everything...but that’s OK, at least you know what the BDS suffers are going through when they launch attacks against Bush for silly things.

I know a lot of Catholics, and many of them are politically pro-choice, and in the last two days most of them thought the Pope was wrong in his comments about politicians. Some think the Pope is wrong about the war too. And American Catholics have a long history of ignoring the Pope on a variety of issues, and still believing the faith. That’s because they do not believe that the church has a right to dictate all their moral views, but do believe that in the general teachings and mission of the Church. Even Italians, the most Catholic state in the world, defied the Church and voted to legalize abortion.

Some people apparently think want to return to the middle ages.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Some people apparently think want to return to the middle ages.

Most of them found in the Middle East practicing Islam, but thankfully a few visonaries are shaking those Medievalists hands, eh Doc?
That’s because they do not believe that the church has a right to dictate all their moral views, but do believe that in the general teachings and mission of the Church.
Except when they conflict with my feelings or needs, and then not so much eh doc, kind of invalidating the whole teachings and missions idea....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Pogue, you apparently checked in your brain before making your posts. Nobody’s judging your friend’s alleged Christianity, but her Catholicism is certainly under question. You don’t need to understand Catholicism, just the principles behind joining a private group. Being an ex-Catholic (now Baptist), I happen to know quite a bit about my "original" church. Yet that’s hardly required to understand what’s going on here.

Pelosi is effectively pulling what Michael Moore did for the NRA. If you belong to a private organization, you accept certain conditions of membership. Private groups don’t necessarily require 100% uniformity of belief. For example, a Southern Baptist like me will occasionally drink. But that’s a minor issue. Groups exist because of strong common factors. Anti-abortion belief is an important component of Catholic belief, and the Catholic Church makes no exceptions. The Catholic Church recognizes its Pope as infallible, so what Pope Benedict said about politicians’ stands and communion is defining what church members should believe.

And you throw out the ludicrous notion of "big tent Catholicism" and try to compare it to libertarianism. You act as if the Catholic Church were required, or even should "allow in" a diverse group of beliefs. How about Muslims? Is it all right for someone to attend a church, accept its sacraments, etc., yet say on the side, "Nah, I don’t think Jesus was divine"? Or how about an that the miracles never took place? What of Gnostics?

If someone doesn’t accept the pope’s leadership, fine, then he can leave. He can join some liberal Methodist or Congregationalist movement, or start his own church. Papal infallibility is actually one reason I couldn’t return to the Catholic Church after my atheist years. I wasn’t about to rejoin a church because of the spiritual heritage on both sides of my family, when there were some serious doctrinal issues I disagreed with.

Nobody is forcing a Catholic to stay in the Church, but by voluntarily joining/staying, a person accepts the leaders’ stated authority. By taking communion despite what the Pope said, Pelosi is defying a condition of membership, while insulting the vast majority of members who adhere strongly to major Catholic doctrine. And if she doesn’t leave voluntarily, she should certainly be booted out — i.e. excommunicated.

By the way, if your friend is a social worker, she’s getting paid for doing good. Borrow your friend’s Bible, if she has one, and read Matthew 25. True charity is done out of free will and sacrifice, not because one derives monetary gain or reimbursement.
 
Written By: Perry Eidelbus
URL: http://eidelblog.blogspot.com
she was joined by many other law makers, and in fact all over the country people do as she did.
so because so many people do it it makes it right?

Logical fallacy, Erb.

Fact is, she is committing hubris and a mortal sin by ostensibly taking communion after being told specifically that she is NOT in communion with the Church. Doing so is a direct insult to God (since it is the physical body of Christ being taken).

It has NOTHING at all to do with the Middle Ages or a returning to it, but the fact remains that in a religion certain aspects are considered to be immoral, and doing so imperils your eternal soul. Taking communion while not being in communion with the Church is blasphemous and insulting.

And, again, stop being intellectually dishonest, I know it’s hard, but please try. You CANNOT compare a dictum of the Church with a political position of the Church. One is a question of Faith the other of Politics.

The War in Iraq is a question of Politics while Abortion is a matter of morality and faith. You are purposefully ignoring this fact in an attempt to dishonestly compare the two.

Again, Erb, your ignorance of Catholicism is embarrassing at this point. Let it go.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Seems you might be in a minority, JWG
Are you F’ing STUPID? Catholic Dogma is not a democracy, you fool.

The rule is VERY explicit: Pro-abortion = NO COMMUNION.

Furthermore, it is up to the individual to examine his conscience to determine if he is prepared to receive the eucharist. Your friend MUST do this if she is to ask for the host.

It is not judgmental to point out that Catholics should examine their consciences. It is REQUIRED in order to be a faithful catholic.

You (and Erb) need to seriously shut your ignorant trap and walk away from your mess. You don’t know a thing about what you’re talking about despite repeatedly being given the citation for the rule.

It doesn’t matter if 99% of those who claim to be catholic disagree with the dogma. There’s NO FREAKING VOTE YOU IDIOTS!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The Catholic Church recognizes its Pope as infallible, so what Pope Benedict said about politicians’ stands and communion is defining what church members should believe.
no.

The Pope’s infallibility is only in an official decree.

However, in matters concerning communion and the sacraments, how they should be administered and such, the Pope is the HIGHEST earthly authority and his word is ’law’.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Let’s review, Pogue.

You willingly profess your ignorance on the subject. Yet after admitting that your own beliefs are without any basis, you proceed to state them in a condescending manner. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant "that maybe she just isn’t Catholic enough" when you said "that maybe she just isn’t Christian enough." After all, no one said anything about being Christian at that point, and so if this was not an innocent mistake on your part it would be willful deception. So when saying that, you were acting like you knew what it meant to be Catholic, when you clearly did not.

And when you got called out on it, you sstated "So, in order to go to mass, one must check their brain at the door." You, the person who professed ignorance on the subject, are now professing mental superiority over those who do not. You make baseless assumptions of what it means to be Catholic, and then assume that the actual meaning of being Catholic is brainless. You do not bother to find out why the Church is the way it is, or if there’s a logical basis in its ways. You do not apply any logic whatsoever, only that anything you disagree with (even the things you acknowledge your ignorance of) is wrong. Who’s the one being brainless here, again?

There’s no point in talking to you or Dr. Erb here about this. You assume just because millions of others do it, it’s ok. You assume either truth can be figured out through a democracy, or that truth has no place in religion. You assume one can pick and choose what to believe in, even if the tenets you choose contradict each other. You assume one can simply redefine an organization and that the redefinition is just as valid. Maybe there’s some religions like that, but it ain’t Catholicism. And yet you dare to preach that you know better?
 
Written By: Mariner
URL: http://
Well said, Mariner.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Pogue, it’s pretty simple.
Even you understand rules, right?

The Church has set rules, Pelosi isn’t following them.
Like many people practicing many faiths, they are convenient followers, where it’s convenient for their conscience or life style, they follow tenant, where not, they don’t.

You’ll have to forgive Catholics who DO avoid the sacrament because they feel they aren’t in a state of grace for maybe being a tad annoyed at those who they know are NOT in a state of grace and take the sacrament anyway. You certainly can’t fault them for pointing out (which isn’t the same as judging) that people doing that ARE breaking the rules, and if they REALLY want to be PROPER about their belief they might want to check up and see if they ARE breaking the rules, just as a double check, you know?

And don’t hide behind the social worker, good christian, in your view, thing...
I don’t think anyone said she’s a monster, no one said Pelosi was a monster either. Just....straying from the ordained path.

Maybe a little light reading will help you -
First, you must be in a state of grace. "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is an absolute requirement which can never be dispensed. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous manner.

A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts (Matt. 5:28–29). Scripture contains lists of mortal sins (for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21). For further information on what constitutes a mortal sin, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Out of habit and out of fear of what those around them will think if they do not receive Communion, some Catholics, in a state of mortal sin, choose to go forward and offend God rather than stay in the pew while others receive the Eucharist. The Church’s ancient teaching on this particular matter is expressed in the Didache, an early Christian document written around A.D. 70, which states: "Whosoever is holy [i.e., in a state of sanctifying grace], let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent" (Didache 10).
From here

So, if your friend isn’t adhering to these rules, that’s between her and God I guess, but just because you blow off her failure to adhere to the rules doesn’t mean other Catholics are obliged to be so casual about it.

Me, I grew up with this stuff, and don’t practice, but I can at least understand those who do and can’t object when they call people on it when they know the rules are being broken.


And Erbie -
That’s because they do not believe that the church has a right to dictate all their moral views, but do believe that in the general teachings and mission of the Church
What your suggesting is a guy who likes a lot of the buddhist philosophy, but wants to be able to randomly kill people, can still call himself a true buddhist. A jew who wants to eat ham sandwiches can do so, but he’s not adhering to scripture. A Moslem who shares the sandwich with him is also violating teachings.
This isn’t up to me to judge, it’s up to whatever power they think will judge them when they die. If they break the rules that spirit decides what the price is. The point of the rules is to aid in passing the rules test when you run down the final curtain.
Some people apparently think want to return to the middle ages.
yes, that’s what’s going on here of course, you’re so right of course. I suggest you write on your blog about it.

But you guys who have no knowledge, and no stake in the matter, Scott, Pogue, are out of your depth arguing and or suggesting your happy free-for-all alternatives with people who LIVE these beliefs.

Joel - thanks for confirming what I thought. I was taught that being in sin at the time of taking the sacrement WAS a mortal sin. Glad, in a way, to see that hasn’t changed.

Scott, Pogue - mortal sin + death without shriving your soul = Eternity in hell.
Get it? That’s the RULES.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Becca, I dare say you are judgmental. And saying “Your friend really ought to examine her conscience” IS judgmental on its face. Yet calling it judgmental tripe is uncalled for, but suggesting that my friend’s conscience needs examining, as if to say it is faulty, is to you perfectly acceptable.
Of course it’s judgmental. Religion is judgmental, at least those in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Judgment is the point.

Aside from that, there are lots of people who lack the courage to disbelieve, yet they lack commitment to their religion. They want to have their fun, and be saved in the end. Me thinks your friend fits in that group.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"Communion is the body of the people of the church coming together," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference after returning from the Mass.
I’m with Mariner in raised eyebrows at this statement. If this is Pelosi’s understanding of the sacrament of Holy Communion—the reception of Christ’s Body and Blood—then no wonder any niceties about abortion would entirely escape her notice.

Of course, American Catholicism has become pretty watered down and American Catholics take the sacrament these days without giving it much thought. But, as Mariner and looker point out, that doesn’t make it Catholicism.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
So, if your friend isn’t adhering to these rules, that’s between her and God I guess, but just because you blow off her failure to adhere to the rules doesn’t mean other Catholics are obliged to be so casual about it.
No one is telling you that you can’t believe what you want. You’re the one trying to say that if someone doesn’t agree with your view they are dishonest and are totally clueless about Catholocism.

Some take it seriously, others believe it is OK to go against the Pope, who is a human after all. In Italy, all those good Catholics voted overwhelmingly to support abortion rights. You may think they are NOT good Catholics. They think otherwise. You have your opinion, they have theirs, but the practical reality is that in the real world Catholics very, very often violate church laws, and yet still take communion and see themselves as Catholics. That may be good, may be bad, but it is the way things are.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You may think they are NOT good Catholics
By and large they aren’t even Catholics...check the figures on church attendance in Italy or Euripe in general. "Religion" is a box you check on your paper work...it has nothing to do with attendance, much less belief.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I believe the popular term for people who think they can pick and choose which tenets of Catholicism they want to hold is "cafeteria Catholics." Just because a person calls himself a Catholic doesn’t mean he is one.

Look: Catholicism isn’t a disparate series of lifestyle suggestions. It’s a religion with certain things set in stone. If you go against the Church on those matters, then you’re not a Catholic, even if you say you are. Put another way, it’s wrong on its face to say that a majority of Catholics believe you can be a good Catholic and support abortion; 100% of Catholics are opposed to abortion, because one’s identity as a Catholic has more than a passing association with actual Church doctrine. If a person hitherto self-identifying as a Catholic begins to doubt a fundamental teaching of the Church (e.g., that all human life is sacred), that’s a crisis of faith with the attendant demands on one’s conscience and behavior. "No true Scotsman" isn’t a fallacy in this case.

(Aside: Perry Eidelbus is only partially correct about the papal infallibility thing. The Pope is not considered infallible all the time, but only when speaking ex cathedra. The Church’s position on abortion, however, was strongly set before Benedict became Pope, and he has impressive scholarly understanding of Church doctrine.)
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
You’re the one trying to say that if someone doesn’t agree with your view
HELLO??? ANYBODY HOME???

Hey, moron — it’s not someone’s opinion. It’s CANON LAW.

I seriously think you must have brain damage to be this dense.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Erb,

I think you are failing to understand the problem here:

The Catholic Church does NOT give you leave to choose one way or the other what YOUR definition of ’is’ is.

They are very rigid, very precise, and make it VERY clear. Pelosi is many things, an idiot she is not.

What she did was purposefully blasphemous.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
No one is telling you that you can’t believe what you want. You’re the one trying to say that if someone doesn’t agree with your view they are dishonest and are totally clueless about Catholicism.
No, Scott, read for comprehension.
I’m a lapsed Catholic, a BAD Catholic, a former Catholic, an agnostic, a Deist.
This has noting to do with my beliefs.

Read, for once, the frigging link that someone provided you, you hopeless twit, before you utter one more word.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp
You have your opinion, they have theirs, but the practical reality is that in the real world Catholics very, very often violate church laws, and yet still take communion and see themselves as Catholics.
Which is what makes this between them and the teaching of their church, and ultimately, their God. Not between me and them, or me and you.

I’ve decided to call myself Emperor of the World. That doesn’t make it so.
They can call themselves anything they like, they are sinners in the eyes of the Church, it doesn’t make them LESS Catholic, just sinners in the eyes of the Church.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The Pope is not considered infallible all the time, but only when speaking ex cathedra.
I couldn’t remember the term. thanks Bryan

basically, he has to do it officially while sitting on the Chair of St. Peter.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
And to be fair I am a "Cafeteria Catholic"...I don’t believe that the clergy should be exclusively male nor do celibate...on the "big" issues "The Pappa" and I simpatico, but I don’t adhere to all the beliefs. Certainly, this isn’t some "Holier than Thou" screed here...

On Papal Infallibility...it’s on matter of Dogma and the Pope has spoken ONCE on it...The Blessed Virgin was assumed, bodily, into Heaven...yepper that’s it, that’s the ONLY thing the Pope, any Pope, has ever made an ex cathedra statement on. That Pope (Pius XII) took the bold step of announcing as a matter of faith and dogma something that the Faithful had believed for centuries...

Doc, no one who practices the One True Faith, of Holy Mother Church, believes that politics and money and many human things don’t enter into its governance...don’t make a straw man. Ask anyone who’s sought an annulment or seen the Kennedy’s remain Catholic, for the cost of many donations and gifts, knows that human foibles and politics enter into the picture. It’s not that we’re not human, it’s the Divine that attracts us, well that and the pancakes, the beer, the Bingo, the Church Fairs, and the bratwursts.....and if you’re single guy the "good" Catholic girls.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
They can call themselves anything they like, they are sinners in the eyes of the Church, it doesn’t make them LESS Catholic, just sinners in the eyes of the Church.
Well, aren’t we all sinners in the eyes of the church? People break with church teachings and rules a lot, often disagreeing with the church. That was my point.

Look: Catholicism isn’t a disparate series of lifestyle suggestions. It’s a religion with certain things set in stone. If you go against the Church on those matters, then you’re not a Catholic, even if you say you are.
Many Catholics hold a very different view than you, Bryan. That’s reality. You have a right to your opinion, they have a right to have and to act on theirs. You can say they aren’t really Catholic, they can say they are and you’re wrong.

And there’s not much you can do about it except complain. The Pope could ex-communicate — heck, the Pope once excommunicated the entire city of Venice. But other than that...
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You have your opinion, they have theirs, but the practical reality is that in the real world Catholics very, very often violate church laws, and yet still take communion and see themselves as Catholics. That may be good, may be bad, but it is the way things are.
Dr. Erb, in my Church, we call "the way things are" fallen and a state of sin. We call abortion absolutely 100% wrong (it is, afterall, willful killing and leads to the disrespect of all human life by societies which engage in it), and we’re not afraid to say that people (like those "good Catholics" in Italy who voted for abortion "rights") can sin and fall short of what God requires of us.

It seems that you can’t understand that for those of us who try to be obedient Catholics and push ourselves hard to do what God asks of us through the Son and His Bride, the Church, these aren’t political matters. This has to do with our struggle to be a beacon on the hill, to push for Right and Truth in a world ruled by Wrong and Evil forces. This has to do with immortal souls and civic participation in the City of God. "Catholic" leaders like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and even many members of the clergy and religious orders who beat the drums of individualism and relative values are furthering the spread of mortal sin and imperiling not only their own souls, but the souls of a vast number of others (all of those "good Catholics" you cite). When their disobedience to Church teaching has to do with abortion or euthanasia, furthermore, they are reaping the moral consequences for the slaughter of millions of human beings across the world. This isn’t a matter on which Catholics can simply disagree, and we who understand the nature of the sin won’t simply go away and shut up just because we’re in the minority.
 
Written By: becca balmes
URL: http://
And to be fair I am a "Cafeteria Catholic"...I don’t believe that the clergy should be exclusively male nor do celibate
big difference, though. You can have a difference of opinion with the Church on issues like that, there are many Doctors of the Church which do. The fact is, however, so long as a bishop doesn’t start arbitrarily Ordaining female priests and a cleric doesn’t start sleeping around, its OK.

Again: submitting to the wisdom of Rome is what’s an important tenant in the Church. You can, and are encouraged to, work from within for change. but again, playing by the rules.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
This isn’t a matter on which Catholics can simply disagree, and we who understand the nature of the sin won’t simply go away and shut up just because we’re in the minority.


I wouldn’t even put us in the minority.....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Many Catholics hold a very different view than you, Bryan. That’s reality. You have a right to your opinion, they have a right to have and to act on theirs. You can say they aren’t really Catholic, they can say they are and you’re wrong.
Erb, you’re not understanding this.

Opinions don’t MATTER in this case. How hard is that for you to understand? According to Church DOCTRINE, Church LAW, it either is or isn’t. There isn’t a ’choice’ in the matter. It’s hot or cold, black or white, RIGHT OR WRONG.

They can disagree and still call themselves Catholics, and they would be WRONG with every fiber in their being, because the laws of the Church expressly, and with no ambiguity, say otherwise.

Again: this isn’t a damned glee club ruling.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
But isn’t the real relationship between yourself and God? Not yourself and the Pope?
Lots of past teachings that were thought of law have since been rescinded...couldn’t this be one? And the (good) reason why not all follow doctrines to the ’t’?



 
Written By: DannyBoy
URL: http://
they can say they are and you’re wrong
Again — WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

The laity have NO SAY in Canon Law. Quoting Canon Law is NEVER wrong from a Catholic perspective.

The Catholic Church is not like the United Nations, no matter how much your scum-sucking desires want it to be.

Your lies utterly disgust me you piece of putrid filth.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The way I look at the Catholic church is that it’s not about "truth", it’s about "correctness". The Catholic church has decided what the correct things to do are, and truth doesn’t enter into it.

For example, with communion. Jesus himself instituted communion at the last supper. He was at the table with his disciples, and after they had eaten, he told them why he was here on earth. He would die, accepting the consequences of everyone’s sins for himself.

He then took bread, and said, "This is my body. I love you, and everybody else, so much, that I will die in your places. I want you to take this bread, my body, and eat it, and remember my sacrifice and my love for you."

Then, he took wine, and said, "This is my blood. I love you and everybody else, so much, that I will die in your places. My blood will be shed for your sakes. I want you to take this wine, my blood, and drink it, and remember by sacrifice and my love for you."

Now the Catholic church says that when you do this, it only counts if a special person (a priest) blesses the bread and wine for you. Jesus didn’t say that; the Catholic church says that.

The Catholic church says that when you do this, you should have relatively recently confessed your sins to a special person (a priest) who will have told you what you need to do to cleanse yourself of them. Jesus didn’t say that; the Catholic church says that.

The Catholic church says that you have to believe certain specific things, or you shouldn’t take communion. Once again, Jesus didn’t say that; in fact, he put no preconditions whatsoever on taking communion other than that you are to do it in remembrance of him.

The Catholic church puts these preconditions on communion. That’s because the Catholic church is about correctness.
 
Written By: George
URL: http://
But isn’t the real relationship between yourself and God? Not yourself and the Pope?
Lots of past teachings that were thought of law have since been rescinded...couldn’t this be one? And the (good) reason why not all follow doctrines to the ’t’?
No, because (unless your ’pardoned’ after the fact, and considering how the Church moves it would be post mortem) while you were doing them they were wrong.

Once the Church changes the rules, then you’re no longer breaking them. That being said, it doesn’t happen often.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Not yourself and the Pope?
Which is why Pelosi was not denied communion. She is free to choose sin.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Joel
Wouldn’t you say that the reason some doctrines changed was because people defied them in the first place?
 
Written By: DannyBoy
URL: http://
"She is free to choose sin."

I have to say, that was funny, lol.
 
Written By: DannyBoy
URL: http://
George, this is not a theological discussion on how accurately the Catholic Church represents "Truth."

Take that discussion elsewhere.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
But isn’t the real relationship between yourself and God? Not yourself and the Pope?
Yes, it is...HOWEVER, the Pope is Christ’s Vicar on Earth, His, human successor, the heir of the Apostles, and in the last century or so a pretty bright guy, supported by a host of pretty bright guys, all of whom, besides having funny taste in hats and shoes, have studied the Gospels and the Canon law and Church History and Traditions pretty thoroughly. SO, if they say, "We hold ’X’ to be true" I am inclined to believe them...just like when my cardiologist says, "Joe I think it’s time for an ablation." I tend to believe him....Now on some things, male clergy I’m seeing some Church history at work and am willing to say, "I don’t know" just like when my cardiologist said, Joe I want to crack your chest", I got a second opinion...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://

But isn’t the real relationship between yourself and God? Not yourself and the Pope?
Lots of past teachings that were thought of law have since been rescinded...couldn’t this be one? And the (good) reason why not all follow doctrines to the ’t’?
Have the 10 Commandments been rescinded? Any of them? No? Then the Church’s position on abortion isn’t about to be. Because abortion = murder (importantly and specifically, killing the innocent), and last I checked, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was one of the commandments. I wouldn’t look to the Catholic church to someday rescind its position on murder.
 
Written By: becca balmes
URL: http://
JWG: My point is that it’s irrelevent how accurately the Catholic church represents truth, because that’s not what the Catholic church is about. I’m agreeing with you. Pelosi shouldn’t haven taken communion because she has incorrect beliefs. That’s all that matters.
 
Written By: George
URL: http://
Joel
Wouldn’t you say that the reason some doctrines changed was because people defied them in the first place?
and are, to this day, considered wrong.

Look, for example, to Martin Luther: everything he wanted changed was eventually done. The problem the Church had with him was that he left, split the church and took people with him. That’s Pride.

Look at it this way: if you have a problem with your family, do you work from within to fix the problems or do you split the family up into factions and leave?

This is why, btw, Martin Luthor died a Catholic and repented for doing what he did before his death.

You can disagree and work from the inside to change things. But there’s a proper way of doing it.

 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Wouldn’t you say that the reason some doctrines changed was because people defied them in the first place?

Not recently... the last big upheaval Vatican II was top-down driven, not bottom-up driven...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Good to see the "many Catholics" theme appear as justification for doing what you like isn’t it?

10 COMMANDMENTS...that’s so....authoritarian.

Why not...the 10 really nifty ideas.
So much more friendly.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Why not...the 10 really nifty ideas.
So much more friendly.
Or, better yet:

The 10 Suggestions
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Look, for example, to Martin Luther: everything he wanted changed was eventually done. The problem the Church had with him was that he left, split the church and took people with him. That’s Pride.

This is why, btw, Martin Luthor died a Catholic and repented for doing what he did before his death.
I doubt the accuracy of much of this.

Martin Luther did not die a Catholic. He is still officially excommunicated from the Catholic church, and there is no indication that that will change anytime soon.

Also, much of what Martin Luther believed is not followed in the Catholic church today. Catholic priests still cannot marry. Catholics are still taught and encouraged to pray to and for the dead, which Luther disagreed with. Luther did not believe in the concept of purgatory. The Catholic church still has indulgences. I could go on.

About the only major thing I can think of that the Catholic church eventually accepted was the translation of the Bible from Latin.

And the problem the Catholic church had with Martin Luther is not that he left. It had major problems with him before he left. The problem the Catholic church had with Martin Luther is that he disagreed with its teachings.
 
Written By: George
URL: http://
George, to add to your list: Martin Luther’s concept of justification by faith alone was roundly rejected by the Catholic Church, and still is.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Martin Luther did not die a Catholic. He is still officially excommunicated from the Catholic church, and there is no indication that that will change anytime soon.
Martin Luther Confessed before his death. He followed every teaching of the Church he broke away from.

His biggest sin, again, was Pride in taking people away from the Mother Church. you’ll note that he believed in all the same things the Church taught.

Luther DID believe in Purgatory, DID believe in the transubstantiation, DID confess regularly, etc.

And no, the church today does not officially accept indulgences.

And the Problem the Church had was that he left. Yes, many didn’t like him for his reformation ideas, which, again, happens when men disagree. But in the end most of his reformations were adopted.

There were a few things not adopted, but of the 95, most indeed were.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Well said, Mariner.
Well, better than you JWG anyway…
Are you F’ing STUPID?

YOU IDIOTS!

Your lies utterly disgust me you piece of putrid filth.

Written By: JWG
Obviously JWG, you are the follower of Christ’s law and a man of faith.

There’s no point in talking to you or Dr. Erb here about this.
No need to continue, anyway. Thanks for your help. I think I’m getting a clear picture of what it means to be a true Catholic according to most of you here, despite the disagreements of the majority of Catholics in this country.

That it is OK to break from the Vatican on certain issues, but not others. That true charity is done out of free will and sacrifice, I guess that Mathew just forgot to put the exception for shiny red Prada shoes in his gospel. That Cannon Law is fallible, but only after the fact. And that Democrats, not Republicans, are the only ones to be damned for their sins.

Yes, those poor sinners out there that just think they are Catholic. They should come here and read up about it so that they can leave the church to find a more tolerating pulpit.

That way, it will be just you true Catholics, and the pedophile tolerating hypocrites that govern you.

And if you read that to be condescending… then good on you.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
And that Democrats, not Republicans, are the only ones to be damned for their sins.
I’m surprised Pogue.
You are making a reach here. I don’t think they said Republicans that do the same thing Pelosi did are exempt from the rule.
That was only stated by you, at no point did any one of the, pardon the intended pun, defenders of the faith, say anything of that nature at all.

Or is it buried somewhere in the midst of someone’s post and I missed it?



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
think I’m getting a clear picture of what it means to be a true Catholic according to most of you here, despite the disagreements of the majority of Catholics in this country.
And once again you point out your stupidity. It’s NOT "according to most of you here."

All you have to do is read the Canon Law which has been cited and quoted to you several times.

Is it really that hard for you to read? It’s actually posted in English, you know. The Church has made it quite easy to understand the rules. Pope Benedict even gave some examples of when it’s OK to disagree and still receive communion. Abortion ain’t it.

It’s funny that you feel superior considering your inability to read simple text.
And that Democrats, not Republicans, are the only ones to be damned for their sins.
There are plenty of sins to go around for everyone. But since you find reading too difficult a task from your dizzying intellectual heights, you’d likely have trouble figuring out what they are.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
No Looker, it is not what was stated in this post or comments, it is the lack of posts or comments about other politicians.

Like… oh lets just pick one at random…

David Vitter.
Religion: Roman Catholic
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Obviously JWG, you are the follower of Christ’s law and a man of faith.
Yes, and I fall quite short of the glory of God.

I can, however, read what is put in front of me without getting confused about what is law and what is opinion. I suppose with that comment I will have to add "pride" to my list for this week.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
David Vitter.
Religion: Roman Catholic
I must have missed where he held a press conference proclaiming his intention to maintain his sin while receiving communion. Could you be so kind as to point it out for me?

No? I didn’t think so.

Idiot.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://

All you have to do is read the Canon Law which has been cited and quoted to you several times.
I know many Catholics who would disagree with that definition of a true Catholic. Some in fact are working hard to try to change church doctrine, and think it appropriate to violate it if they do not agree. You see, you’re trying to say I have to accept your definition of how to define a true Catholic. I don’t, and I know many Catholics who differ. And if you don’t like that, that’s not my problem.

As to Luther, If I had more time I’d go into Luther’s amazing journey, which I’ve also studied extensively (did a seminar at the Schlosskirche in Wittenberg in fact). He did not die a Catholic. Whoever wrote that is on drugs. At the end of his life Luther was extremely anti-Catholic.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
you’re trying to say I have to accept your definition of how to define a true Catholic
Are you vying for the world’s stupidest professor?

It’s not MY definition.

I suppose you are going to next argue that you don’t have to believe that Jesus is God in order to be a Catholic? Can I be a Catholic if I believe I must sacrifice newborn babies? Are there ANY freaking rules?

You are a laughingstock.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Some in fact are working hard to try to change church doctrine, and think it appropriate to violate it if they do not agree. You see, you’re trying to say I have to accept your definition of how to define a true Catholic. I don’t, and I know many Catholics who differ. And if you don’t like that, that’s not my problem
The Church definitions have been given to you to read. Not the opinions of your various friends and acquaintances.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Sanctioned by official Church authority, not collected on an opinion tour during a wine and cheese party.

A ’true’ Catholic if you use the meaning of the word ’true’ in it’s intended sense, WOULD adhere to the teaching about abortion and wouldn’t take Communion in a state of sin. So they can call themselves Catholics if they do these things, but they aren’t TRUE Catholics if they willfully violate these teachings, constantly, consistently, willfully.

They’re certainly sinners in the eyes of the Church.
That shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Prof. Erb represents the postmodern view that "I am what I define myself to be and other things can be what I define them to be."

Naturally that’s not the Roman Catholic position, though there are, as Erb points out, some Catholics who make the attempt.

I’m an ex-Catholic and I left because I would not accept the Church’s authority. However, I do accept the Church’s authority to define Roman Catholicism. I understand the practical and emotional reasons people remain in the Church, but it still seems to me that they are fooling themselves if they wish to pick and choose what teachings they accept.

Returning to Pelosi — unless she wishes to go on record that she’s redefining Roman Catholicism on her terms, I think she’s a hypocrite and misleading others.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
JWG:
Are you vying for the world’s stupidest professor?
As you approach that conclusion, you have to step back and consider the role that pathological dishonesty plays in it.

Just as when you approach pathological dishonesty as the explanation, you have to step back and consider the role that stupidity plays in it.

Between those two, you can pretty much wrap up the case. Which is not to say that willful ignorance, laziness, narcissism, and passive aggression can’t be sandwiched in there.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
huxley:
Returning to Pelosi — unless she wishes to go on record that she’s redefining Roman Catholicism on her terms,
I think that she just did.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Some in fact are working hard to try to change church doctrine, and think it appropriate to violate it if they do not agree. You see, you’re trying to say I have to accept your definition of how to define a true Catholic. I don’t, and I know many Catholics who differ. And if you don’t like that, that’s not my problem.
Erb, it’s not MY definition or OUR Definition, but rather the CHURCH’S definition we’re talking about. It doesn’t matter what their ’interpretation’ is because it doesn’t matter: the only one that it really matters about is the only person capable of affecting change: The Popes.

That’s it. And according to him, they’re wrong. It isn’t his ’opinion’, it’s Church Law.

I disagree that Marijuana’s illegal status, it doesn’t make it any more legal, and if I’m caught with it, guess who’s getting arrested?

and knowingly violating a situation like this is a sin. period. It is written, etc etc.

The Ten Commandments is Not the Constitution, and the only person who can amend it is God.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
lemme re-write that line (damn, I’m tired)

"I disagree with Marijuana’s illegal status, but it doesn’t make it any less illegal."

Ok, carry on
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Erb, it’s not MY definition or OUR Definition, but rather the CHURCH’S definition we’re talking about. It doesn’t matter what their ’interpretation’ is because it doesn’t matter: the only one that it really matters about is the only person capable of affecting change: The Popes.
Guys, by my count, and I could be off a little, this is about the 20th time this irrefutable point has been made to Professor Professionally Obtuse and he either doesn’t have the mental acumen to understand the point or is too intellectually dishonest to acknowledge it.

Save your breath, or fingers in this case.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Pogue sorry about your friend and your’s bubble being burst...that whole "Sorry your friend (you) AREN’T Roman Catholic” and though it’s a sin, I am truly enjoying you lash out and wallow around in silliness...God help me.

You and Erb just can’t accept the fact that certain things define Roman Catholicism and when these things get pointed out and your logical errors appear you and he just appear silly.

Like where did the Democrat/Republican issue emerge? Don’t recall that EVER being brought up...

Or Vitter, again, as someone else pointed out, don’t recall Vitter being the topic or Vitter saying, "Though I frequent prostitutes, and the Church frowns on that, I consider myself a Catholic in good standing. In fact, though I may have "sinned;" I will not confess this so-called sin and though confession of mortal sin is a prerequisite for Communion I shall continue to view myself as eligible to receive Communion."

You got problems with authority figures, folks who play Rush Limbaugh and make you listen or the Pope...whatever dude...or folks who explain to you that, no, your friend is NOT a good Catholic and in fact might be happeir and better served in another Church...that apparently upset you...again someone presuming to make a judgement, who are they to do so! Well, "they" are the folks who read the rule book and are explaining it to you. Rather than debate you just want to lash out and bring up stuff that is wholly extraneous to the topic.

Drive on Troop is all I can say....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Are you vying for the world’s stupidest professor?
I’m just saying a lot of Catholics don’t agree with that definition, they receive communion, they vote for abortion rights in Italy, and while you can huff and puff and think that since the "official" ruling says Catholics should do "x" that means these people aren’t true Catholics in the REAL PRACTICAL WORLD of who defines themselves as Catholics, goes to mass, and takes communion, your definition is utterly and completely irrelevant. So call me names all you want, I understand exactly what you’re saying, as you repeat it over and over, and I simply reject it. In terms of the real world of practice and identity, the church’s official definition is irrelevant. You guys are so obtuse that you don’t seem to understand I reject the way you are defining the term, or even that in practical terms the appeal to authoritative definitions has any relevance. If you don’t like that, well, keep calling names. That’s really all you can do.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
For some comic relief, this was my favorite blogger post when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope. It reflects the unrealistic expectations liberals have about Catholicism.
April 19, 2005
Verdict On Pope: "Too Catholic"

The disappointment in the voices of the anchors during CTV news coverage was palpable. One got the sense they were hoping for an upset, and a politically correct "progressive" papal election angle to pursue. "The new pope, Wang Chung One, the first from China, standing alongside his same-sex partner as he appeared on the balcony at the Vatican, introducing himself to a billion Catholics by declaring a woman’s right to chooooooose... well, Lloyd, this is a turning point for the Church..."

There will be more of that in the coming hours. Watch for the negativity attached to the word "conservative".

Speaking of which - did anyone else hear that waste of ovaries on CBC radio Sunday morning (with Michael Enright) fretting that the Pope’s election was decided by men?

She thoughtfully explained (in a voice admirably free of self-mocking) that simply adding women to the process wouldn’t resolve the issues, because... women don’t all think alike. No, she offered, garden variety women need not apply. Only women who had studied the issues and had the correct "intellectual" appreciation for them would be suitable. "Feminists" should be involved in the selection of the Pope.

There was no laugh track.
—Kate McMillan
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/001729.html
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Oh, an aside: the Pope gave a great address to the UN today. Ratzinger, though very conservative, is brilliant.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Guys, by my count, and I could be off a little, this is about the 20th time this irrefutable point
Are you dense, McQ. I never at all denied that this was the official view of the church. I just said that in practical terms the official view of the church does not determine who gets communion, who goes to mass, who calls themselves Catholic, and how Catholicism is practiced. Think of it as an operational definition.

It’s like you guys aren’t reading. You can certainly say you think the official church definition is superior to my practical, operational definition. I’ll say my definition describes the real world better, and is in line with how most Catholics view their faith. You can’t say that yours is the only right definition, since we disagree on the standards of what makes the definition ’right.’ My standard is how well it describes the real world (a realist standard), your definition is how well it describes the official stand of what a Catholic should be (an idealist standard). Get it YET?!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Your post-modernist definitions are only "real" to those who don’t want to follow the rules, Erb.
of what a Catholic should be
Nope. You’re still wrong, idiot.

I’ll quit after this — the laity DO NOT get to determine Catholicism. Dogma is not "should be" — it "is".

That is what your "definition" gets wrong. If many people "realistically" get the dogma wrong, they don’t get to redefine it. Then it’s no longer dogma. They’re just wrong.
keep calling names. That’s really all you can do
Then you immediately come back and state, "Are you dense, McQ?"

Priceless. Tell me again about hypocrites? Pretty Please?

Furthermore, since you’re so hung up on majority opinions — maybe you ought to abide by the majority opinion here and accept that you’re an illogical dolt.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Your post-modernist definitions are only "real" to those who don’t want to follow the rules, Erb.
LOL! No, they describe reality, the real way Catholicism is practiced and how people identify. You just can’t take that I don’t buy your approach. Tough. You would do a poor job in social science, though, with your rather limited approach.

I do love how you wear your emotion on your sleeve though.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris:
It’s like you guys aren’t reading. You can certainly say you think the official church definition is superior to my practical, operational definition.
Since the Church, when it comes to Communion, is not a social organization, but a spiritual and mystical one, based on Scripture and the Church’s Magisterium, there is no such thing as a "practical, operational definition" of the Church’s teaching.

So, when Pelosi presents herself for Communion after the Pope tells her not to, she can be excommunicated, or, rather, probably is already automatically excommunicated latae sententiae.

The fact that Pelosi, or anyone else guilty in the eyes of the Church of facilitating the grave sin of abortion, particularly someone as highly placed in political leadership as Pelosi, continues to act as though she is in communion with the Church only worsens her spiritual condition.

The Church could formally excommunicate her, as a way of putting her on notice as to just how grave her condition is. Why or if the Church doesn’t excommunicate her is reflective of the Church’s prudential judgment, but that doesn’t change Pelosi’s spiritual condition.

She can be forgiven if she repudiates both her act of presenting herself for Communion when specifically told not to and for her support for abortion, which is a grave offense. There is no "practical, operational definition" other than the Church’s official position.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris responds to JWG:
"Your post-modernist definitions are only "real" to those who don’t want to follow the rules, Erb."

LOL! No, they describe reality, the real way Catholicism is practiced and how people identify. You just can’t take that I don’t buy your approach. Tough. You would do a poor job in social science, though, with your rather limited approach.

I do love how you wear your emotion on your sleeve though.
The only "real way that Catholicism is practiced" is in accordance with the Church’s teaching. One is not required to accept the Church’s teachings on all things, i.e., in those areas where the Church does not itself accept final authority, such as the civil matters of capital punishment and war. But when the Pope tells you not to present yourself for Communion, the only "real way" to be a Catholic is to obey him.

Pelosi’s behavior is scandalous. The Pope would be well within his authority to excommunicate her. But, of course, that would mean nothing to her, since she is not practicing Catholicism anyway, and has no apparent interest in it.

And your crack about "social science" illustrates what an idiotic fool you are.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
You would do a poor job in social science
Actually, I just redefined what it is to be an excellent social scientist about 5 minutes ago, so now I am a great social scientist in reality.
The only "real way that Catholicism is practiced" is in accordance with the Church’s teaching.
Wait...Erb told me Catholics could sacrifice babies to the idol god Qhvixz while denying Jesus is the messiah.

I’m so confused.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Abortion Schmabortion. I’ll believe this is a real doctrinal issue and not a stupid political game when all those american catholics and politicians who use birth control are also denied communion. If you use birth control or even believe in it, you’re not a good catholic. But I guess that the catholic church has enough problems without excommunicating most their US membership.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
The hypocrisy is so intense, it should be openly bursting into flame. The pope is against abortion - and the death penalty, and all forms of contraception, even birth control for married couples, and the Iraq War. Nancy Pelosi is ready to take part in Catholic ceremonies while disagreeing with the Pope, like 97% of Catholics in the country. And Q can’t get over the slap in the face to religious authority. All the Pope-obeying, anti-abortion, anti-death-penalty, anti-contraception, and anti-war folk in the house, by all means, get on Nancy Pelosi’s back. You and the other true believers can hold a party in a phone booth.

Everyone else, including the commentariat thugs and the blog owner, should probably get right with their own G*d before looking for the mote in Nancy Pelosi’s eye.


Don’t even get me started on how the Christian ultimate commandment to help the unfortunate and suffering in the world is one hundred percent in opposition to libertarian capitalism, and how the final commandment to seek peace over anger, love over hatred, and forgiveness over revenge, and to judge not, lest ye be judged, is as far from in evidence here as anywhere.
One is not required to accept the Church’s teachings on all things, i.e., in those areas where the Church does not itself accept final authority, such as the civil matters of capital punishment and war.
What a convenient layering this is, isn’t it? Where you disagree with the Pope, that’s just a disagreement in "civil matters", and the Pope understands completely, we’re told. You and the Pope have worked this out. Sure, it may be spitting in the face of the example of a Jesus Christ who handed himself over to death rather than slay the living, but the Pope thinks that’s not really important.

But hey, when you and the Pope agree and some other Catholic X disagrees, *that*’s where the real harlots and heretics are, huh? Their disrespect of the chosen representative of Christ on earth is sinful and evil, whereas yours is okay.

What the fruitcake does "civil matters" mean, eh? These are parts of your life where you are allowed to sin? Parts of your life where you’ve been given a temporary pass to do the devil’s work? Parts of your life where God’s word doesn’t really count? Is that sort of like being a good Catholic on weekends, except when you go to work? I don’t recall Jesus spreading a message of splitting obedience to him and the Pharisees 70/30.

The truth is, the pope has made a political compromise. Having no coercive controls, he has abandoned Christian doctrine and chosen to ignore some types of sins in the hope of mobilizing people against more unpopular sins. It’s a dandy organizational strategy, but it doesn’t have much to do with the message of Christ.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
But hey, when you and the Pope agree and some other Catholic X disagrees, *that*’s where the real harlots and heretics are, huh?
Another idiot who can’t bother to read the Canon Law when it has been posted.

Thanks for spewing your ignorance.
one hundred percent in opposition to libertarian capitalism
Ever hear of charity? It means it’s not coerced by the government.

Seriously, could you try to show a little intelligence?

I don’t care if you find a certain religion (or any/all religion) to be imperfect to your personal philosophies, but at least be intellectually honest enough to read what the religion actually teaches.
If you use birth control or even believe in it, you’re not a good catholic.
As has been repeatedly said, there are plenty of areas in which the laity fall short of the teachings of a particular faith. However, when a church explicitly teaches that not all moral failings are equal in severity, there is no hypocrisy for the church to criticize some actions more than others.

Furthermore, who has been holding press conferences bragging about their support for birth control and their intentions to throw it in the face of the Pope?

The Catholic Church often points out their expectations for reproduction. If you have trouble understanding which actions that affect reproduction are barriers to faithfully receiving communion, then you can ask a priest or read the Canon Law.

Thanks for coming by and adding your well studied and intellectually coherent points, though. We can tell you’ve given this a great deal of thought and reflection. Idiot.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
You may call me an idiot and I will call you a moron.

Now that that is out to way on to your question.
who has been holding press conferences bragging about their support for birth control and their intentions to throw it in the face of the Pope?
Aproximately the same number of people who were holding press conferences about their position on abortion and communion before a certain group of people decided to politicize communion by agitating against certain other people recieving it.

The communion deniers started this mess, they don’t get to whine when they lose a round.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
decided to politicize communion by agitating against certain other people recieving it
Yes, Retief — you’re right.

How dare the Church remind its members about the rules. What were they thinking? The Catholic leadership just needs to keep their mouths shut and let the laity do whatever they want without criticism.

I’m glad you cleared that up for me.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
glasnost, the ultimate commandment of Christianity is not to help the unfortunate and suffering in the world. You may enter into the false dichotomy of believing that I therefore speak against the alleviation of suffering, in hopes of preserving your argument, but you know that is not so. There are common, unremarkable, shared understandings of the faith - what Lewis called "mere Christianity," that have been remarkably persistent despite 20 centuries of the same old heresies showing up every few years.

You have an understanding of Christianity in general and Catholicism in specific that is about 45 degrees off, and then complain that it doesn’t add up to you. There’s a surprise. If you do care deeply about what seems to be be contradictions, hypocrisies, and inconsistencies to you, you might consider that intelligent others have addressed these issues and seek them out. To blithely assume that you are the first one who has had such questions is a little odd.

You either want to know the answers to those questions or you don’t. You have stuck your neck out far enough that you cannot have it both ways. You must now either dig deeper or leave off your shallow criticism. As the saying goes "You ordered it. You eat it."

Scott Erb, the idea of an operational definition of Catholicism is interesting, and I want you to know that the same question occurred to me years ago - which is "really" Catholicism? The practice of the majority, or the teaching of the authority? It may interest you to know that this question is not new among Catholics, and has been the subject of many debates over the centuries. At any given moment, it looked plausible that the operationals were going to win the day, but somehow, they faded into obscurity, century after century.

Full disclosure: I am an evangelical with a good deal of sympathy for the RC and Orthodox churches.
 
Written By: Assistant Village Idiot
URL: http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com
However, when a church explicitly teaches that not all moral failings are equal in severity, there is no hypocrisy for the church to criticize some actions more than others.
What are you saying, JWG: some moral failings are more serious than others? How can this be? Why, if the law used that theory, then people would be punished more severely for murder than for burglary.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
you guys need to understand something here:

Abortion is considered murder in all of its methods, Capital Punishment is NOT because it is found in the Bible. War is as well, and the idea of Casus Belli was created by the Church.

There are some things which are opinions of popes and others that are church doctrine. THAT is a VERY important bit that glasnost and others are NOT understanding, or pointedly ignoring to score cheap, and incorrect, political shots. The Vatican has, for a few years now, been against Capital Punishment: but it is NOT official Church Doctrine, nor is it considered a sin. Abortion IS considered church doctrine, and IS considered a sin. Do you notice the difference?

Again, the problem here is that a Politician used her power to bring attention to herself while she knowingly and willingly committed a blatant act of blasphemy for no other reason than she likes the attention. This is only slightly worse than what Giuliani did by taking communion at St. Patricks because he’s divorced, and KNOWS he shouldn’t do it. He’s just as wrong as Pelosi is.

The DIFFERENCE is that Pelosi compounded her Blasphemy with PRIDE because she announced she was going to do it and went ahead and did it.

to quote George Carlin:

It was a sin to want to take communion
It was a sin to plan to take communion
It was a sin to announce your intent to take communion.
It was a sin to go to take communion
It was a sin to try to take communion
It was a sin to actually take communion
It was a sin to brag about it afterwards.

That’s 7 Sins in one field.

Others have addressed the other failings of Glasnost’s post, so I’ll leave it at that.

Again, you need to actually know what the Cannon Law says before you start talking about it, people.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
JWG, when did the American Life League and National Review become part of the Church Hierarchy? The pope can say whatever he likes on this, as can other leaders. But as you know perfectly well, they are not the ones creating this "controversy".
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
You guys just aren’t explaining it in simple enough terms for Professor Erb.

Lets say a university tenure committee states a professor’s body of work does not meet their standards, therefore they are denying him tenure. The professor states he does not agree with their decision regarding him because he has some serious issues with their tenure policy.

He then goes around the university declaring he is a tenured professor. Thousands of students on campus love this professor and continue to take his classes.

The professor may even be right, the policies of the tenure committee are in error and should be changed. However, no matter what he thinks, no matter how intelligent he is, the guy ain’t tenured.

Only a moron would argue that he is tenured.
 
Written By: Rod
URL: http://
Scott Erb, the idea of an operational definition of Catholicism is interesting, and I want you to know that the same question occurred to me years ago - which is "really" Catholicism? The practice of the majority, or the teaching of the authority? It may interest you to know that this question is not new among Catholics, and has been the subject of many debates over the centuries. At any given moment, it looked plausible that the operationals were going to win the day, but somehow, they faded into obscurity, century after century.
I think you’re wrong about the history, what ’debates’ are you referring to?

The fact is that if you go to Italy, over 90% of the population is self-professed Catholic, goes to mass, takes communion, and the church marries/buries them. Yet a vast number use birth control, voted in favor of abortion rights in a referenda (shocking and embarrassing the church) and don’t follow church teachings all the time. Now, are these people Catholic or not? You certainly can say that they aren’t really by some kind of official definition. But what does that matter? If the Pope doesn’t ex-communicate them, and if they can continue to engage in worship, the sacraments, and be recognized as Catholics, then what practical purpose does their lack of adherence to strict church teachings have?

In the real world, none. So this isn’t even something that ’debates over the centuries’ matter to. It’s the real world and how it operates. After all, the CIA factbook doesn’t have an asterix next to religious affiliation saying "most of these are not truly Catholic, because..."
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Prof. Erb — The distinction is not whether Pelosi et al are Catholic. Of course they are Catholic. As far as I know, by the Church’s teachings it’s impossible to stop being Catholic once one is baptized. Being excommunicated just means that you are banned from receiving Holy Communion, but you’re still Catholic.

The question on the table is whether Pelosi et al are abiding by the laws of the Catholic Church. The answer is no, they are not. Whether they have examined their consciences properly about this is a long discussion. It does make a difference whether they understand that they are sinning.

Roman Catholicism is a deep, demanding, and intricate religion—moreso than most of today’s American Catholics realize.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
The distinction is not whether Pelosi et al are Catholic. Of course they are Catholic. As far as I know, by the Church’s teachings it’s impossible to stop being Catholic once one is baptized. Being excommunicated just means that you are banned from receiving Holy Communion, but you’re still Catholic.
But if you don’t rush back and confess your sins, then being denied the sacraments is at least akin to being out of the church. Of course, when the Pope excommunicated the entire city of Venice, they basically ignored him, knowing they had economic power.

I have not addressed the question of whether they are abiding by the laws of the church; I suspect nobody fully abides by the laws of the church. I’m simply saying that defining ’true Catholic’ in that way really doesn’t make a lot of sense. It’s useful for dissing someone you disagree with, but in the real world Catholics often behave in ways that go against even very basic church teachings.

The church modernized in response to the enlightenment, and Pope Pius IX tried in the 19th century to fight against modernism/capitalism, and failed. But that conservative anti-modern element lives on, though now with real efforts to find compromise. It’s interesting that Castro and John Paul II shared some real critiques of capitalism when the Pope visited Cuba (John Paul from a conservative traditional/religious perspective, Castro obviously from a modernist/communist perspective). Benedict XVI is intriguing because he continues that tradition, but is more fully versed in modernist thought and its strengths/weaknesses than any Pope in recent history. That makes his papacy very interesting; I’m not a Catholic, but I have a lot of respect for the intellect and integrity of Benedict XVI.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Bottom line here .. Pelosi gets to answer to an even higher authority than the Pope. She knows this, and she gets to do the answering.

Everything said here makes no difference in regard to that final judgement.

But in regard to the political posturing, I can say plenty of this crass political hack who uses her "proclaimed" religious affiliation as a punching bag.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
huxley:
The question on the table is whether Pelosi et al are abiding by the laws of the Catholic Church. The answer is no, they are not. Whether they have examined their consciences properly about this is a long discussion. It does make a difference whether they understand that they are sinning.

Roman Catholicism is a deep, demanding, and intricate religion—moreso than most of today’s American Catholics realize.
Pelosi, at roughly 60 years of age, with preeminent responsibility in the political life of the United States, professing to be a Catholic, yet ignoring the direct warning to not present herself for Communion, nonetheless does so at a Mass being celebrated by the Pope.

She should be formally excommunicated, but probably won’t be because it would give her more attention than the message this pope is trying to send.

"Deep, demanding, and intricate?"

Deep and demanding, for sure. The intricacies are not forced onto communicants, I don’t think. There are a variety of theological discussions, very complex, that are always underway in the Church, but partaking in those is not a requirement, and they are on the margin of the fundamental pulse of the Church, which is as accessible to the peasant at work in the field as it is to the grandest doctors of the Church.

Excommunication is used as a warning to someone that they are in grave spiritual danger by their acts. On that score, Pelosi deserves to hear the warning and have it explained to her. Again, I think that the Church will not excommunicate her because she will march off with the excommunication as a badge of honor.

I always thought, believed that she was stupid, and that is probably her saving grace, that she is just such a moron that she hasn’t a clue as to the significance of her behavior. It’s funny though how throngs of Catholics, none of them Speaker of the House, know precisely how scandalous her behavior was.

The Vatican should consider giving bishops the authority to call in public officials who claim to be Catholics, explain to them exactly what they are doing, and then administer a ringing smack across their faces.

Beck always calls this the age of the Eloi, and there’s no doubt that narcissism is now so ordinary in the highest places (including inside the Church) that only supernatural intervention is likely to overcome it.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
But if you don’t rush back and confess your sins, then being denied the sacraments is at least akin to being out of the church.
Prof. Erb — "at least akin" is not the same as "being out of the church." It just isn’t. Though that is the way of much of your thinking from what I can tell in reading your posts:

"A is sort of like B" therefore "A is B."

"Some aspects of Iraq have failed" therefore "The Iraq War is a total failure."
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://

 
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