Not Separate After All

[Platypus]

Churches generally want the state to say out of their business, but it increasingly seems that some of them aren't willing to return the favor (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~64~2147524,00.html).
The bishop of Colorado's second-largest Roman Catholic diocese has issued a pastoral letter saying Catholics cannot receive Communion if they vote for politicians who support abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia or gay marriage.
...
Sheridan goes a step further than most bishops by saying Catholics who vote for such candidates will "suffer the same fateful consequences."
While I recognize that the church also has a stake in these issues, is attempting to influence elections in this way acceptable? The converse would be if the state forbade citizens to attend a certain church, and I think we can all agree that would be unacceptable. At what point should a religious organization be considered to be engaged in political activity, and possibly stripped of their tax-exempt status as a consequence?

[cpwill]

it's no different than a union boss telling his constituents to vote for people who will be friends of Labor :shrug:

i really don't see the threat in this, in fact, should the church support politicians who expresely reject their morals i would think that would be a fairly high form of hypocrisy.

[TomAZ]

I really doubt that there is any government agency, or even a single politician who would pursue this issue. It would be much safer, politically, to just look the other way.

[Platypus]

it's no different than a union boss telling his constituents to vote for people who will be friends of Labor :shrug:
That's true. If coercion is used in either case it would be wrong and action should be taken. The difference is that action is taken against union leaders who abuse their influence in this way, but not against religious leaders who do so. Either organization is of course free to endorse a candidate that best represents their institutional interests, but threatening reprisal if people don't vote a certain way is a different thing entirely. Yes, by all means, let's be consistent about how we treat political action by unions and churches.

[ranger]

That's true. If coercion is used in either case it would be wrong and action should be taken. The difference is that action is taken against union leaders who abuse their influence in this way, but not against religious leaders who do so. Either organization is of course free to endorse a candidate that best represents their institutional interests, but threatening reprisal if people don't vote a certain way is a different thing entirely. Yes, by all means, let's be consistent about how we treat political action by unions and churches.I do not believe this has anything to do with "endorsing" a candidate. It has to do with church truth and teaching. The Catholic Church believes that to receive communion you must be a Catholic properly disposed.

All Catholics know that to receive communion when not in such a state is a grievous sin against God. If a politician feels he must vote against the beliefs of the Church he/she knows the consequences. If they attempt to receive communion and are scandalized by a refusal they only have themselves to blame. In the eyes of the Church the Priest would be committing a grievous sin against God by giving communion to someone not properly disposed. The Priest has no other moral options in this situation.

[Texsand]

And this kind of story should send a sense of dread into the hearts of the faithful because should that wall of separation be breeched by the church it's a short step away from government sponsored religion. Don't believe me then check the history books.

As for the Catholic Priest I don't see much difference between his actions and those of the Sanhedrin 2000 years ago when the man Christians profess walked the earth and took the religious establishment to task at every turn because of it's connection to the Roman state.

[Platypus]

In the eyes of the Church the Priest would be committing a grievous sin against God by giving communion to someone not properly disposed. The Priest has no other moral options in this situation.
OK, but does "not being properly disposed" extend to voting for a particular candidate? I live near Boston, I've been hearing stories about refusing communion to Kerry himself for a while, but this takes the whole thing one step further. While I believe your argument is perfectly valid wrt Kerry himself, I do not believe the church should be attempting to influence other people's votes in this way. That's crossing a line that - as Texsand rightly points out - is there as much to protect the church as to protect the state.

Unfortunately, TomAZ also has a point. No matter what the church does, including offenses far more egregious than this, no politician nowadays would be willing to take them on. To me that says we've already ceded too much to the church. I'm not anti-religion, but it wasn't the Sanhedrin who said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21).

[ranger]

OK, but does "not being properly disposed" extend to voting for a particular candidate? If you are a Catholic you believe what the Catholic Church believes on matters of faith and morals. The Church teaches that abortion is "murder". The Church teaches that a politician that votes for laws that allow for or provide for abortion is a participant in and guilty of the "murders" resulting from such laws. The Church teaches that to vote for such politician makes you a participant in and responsible for the "murders" in the same manner as the politician. This would make the voter improperly disposed.

Clear Church teachings they cannot back down from!

To discuss the “separation of church and state” is another subject.

[Platypus]

To discuss the “separation of church and state” is another subject.
I'm sorry, but could you explain what you mean by that? I thought separation of church and state was exactly the subject here.

[ranger]

I'm sorry, but could you explain what you mean by that? I thought separation of church and state was exactly the subject here.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"! I, and many like me, read this to believe the Congress of the United States cannot make any law as regards religion. For Congress to make a law that says a citizen cannot tell another citizen why their religion will not allow them to vote for certain third citizen would violate the Constitution. The free exchange of speech and ideas among the citizens regardless of their religious affiliation, race, color, sexual inclination, or any other reason is very much Constitutional. For Congress to make a law that says if you or your organization receives tax benefits you no longer have the right to free speech would violate the Constitution.

[Redheat]

So if I have this straight, the church can involve itself in politics because why?.............

Also the Catholic Church is within it's rights to refuse communion for ANY member that they feel doesn't follow their political and social mandates. You can't say God's because there's nothing to show what "God' says or thinks.

So the same church that could find it in their hearts and submitted they were bound by a moral code, could and did FORGIVE and welcome back into their graces men who ABUSED young children, destroying their lives and many times their trust in God and the Church? This is acceptable? Yet the fact that the majority of Catholics DON'T adhere strictly to the Pope's moral ethos can be hand chosen to be refused communion. Now if those people were to offer the church money for a brand new buildging would that be refused too?

I agree with Platypus that the Church needs to keep it's nose out of politics. Given their actions over the past several years and their covering up of crimes, they are hardly in any position to be preaching to anyone else about their social beliefs.

[cpwill]

And this kind of story should send a sense of dread into the hearts of the faithful because should that wall of separation be breeched by the church it's a short step away from government sponsored religion. Don't believe me then check the history books.

actually i think it's more likely to lead to a further separation of church and state. forgive me for being cynical, but it seems to me that most catholic politicians are going to choose their position rather than their church, and now they have an excelent excuse to do so.

As for the Catholic Priest I don't see much difference between his actions and those of the Sanhedrin 2000 years ago when the man Christians profess walked the earth and took the religious establishment to task at every turn because of it's connection to the Roman state.

if you can't see the difference between the passive inability to take the eucharist and the highly aggressive bloody execution of an innocent man in order to mantain power, then perhaps you need to reexamine this situation and if possibly you are biased against the church.

[cpwill]

So if I have this straight, the church can involve itself in politics because why?.............

a church can preach morality, and it can try to instill it in it's members in all facets; including their political beliefs; however, the level at which they do so is chosen by the individual; ie: whether or not they go to church and listen. to join the two, however, is ultimately to significantly damage the church and the state both.

Also the Catholic Church is within it's rights to refuse communion for ANY member that they feel doesn't follow their political and social mandates. You can't say God's because there's nothing to show what "God' says or thinks.

we have Scripture, the Holy Spirit, church tradition, and common sense, those have done us pretty well. however, yes, the catholic church is within it's rights to refuse communion to anyone.

So the same church that could find it in their hearts and submitted they were bound by a moral code, could and did FORGIVE and welcome back into their graces men who ABUSED young children, destroying their lives and many times their trust in God and the Church? This is acceptable?

:rolleyes: this is about as blatant as a straw man argument as i've ever seen on this forum, as well as being a deliberate misrepresentation of the actual subject you are reffering to.

Yet the fact that the majority of Catholics DON'T adhere strictly to the Pope's moral ethos can be hand chosen to be refused communion.

if the church so chooses, yes. they define the level of problem warrants inability to recieve communion, and have the ability and the right to define it as they see fit.

Now if those people were to offer the church money for a brand new buildging would that be refused too?

probably not, seeing as how donating money is hardly a Holy thing on the level of the eucharist within the catholic church. it's sort of like saying that because i have a Secret-level security clearance (i don't, but if i did) that i should also be given access to nuclear launch codes. the one is hardly the other.

I agree with Platypus that the Church needs to keep it's nose out of politics. Given their actions over the past several years and their covering up of crimes, they are hardly in any position to be preaching to anyone else about their social beliefs.

au contraire, they are now better positioned than ever.

[DeathMonkey]

it's no different than a union boss telling his constituents to vote for people who will be friends of Labor :shrug:


I would agree with this analogy, if it were a Union boss withholding benefits from people who DIDNT vote the party line. This is where I think the injustice occurs, although I dont believe it to be a seperation matter, but a Fair Election matter. Inducements of this kind are illegal. Thats why it is illegal to pass out silver dollars or glasses of booze the way they used to, to encourage voters.

Anything that is predicated on securing a vote is illegal. Period, whether its the Catholics or the Teamsters. They can make reccomendations and endorsements, but punishing or rewarding based on voting is against Fair Voting legislation.

[ranger]

So if I have this straight, the church can involve itself in politics because why?.............Individuals within the Catholic are citizens and have every right to involve themselves in politics!

Also the Catholic Church is within it's rights to refuse communion for ANY member that they feel doesn't follow their political and social mandates. You can't say God's because there's nothing to show what "God' says or thinks.Again, it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with saving souls. That is the purpose of the Church. I differ with your opinion, we have scripture and tradition to make us aware of what God wants from us.

So the same church that could find it in their hearts and submitted they were bound by a moral code, could and did FORGIVE and welcome back into their graces men who ABUSED young children, destroying their lives and many times their trust in God and the Church? This is acceptable?
The Church teaches we are all sinners. Any sinner that repents is forgiven and welcome. Any of the politicians we are concerning ourselves with repent and return to the Sacraments.

Yet the fact that the majority of Catholics DON'T adhere strictly to the Pope's moral ethos can be hand chosen to be refused communion. It is not the "Pope's moral ethos" we are talking about. It is the Churches, which has not changed in 2000 years. All Catholics know when they are in a spiritual state that would allow them the Sacraments and they know when they are not. The decision is ultimately theirs and the judgement God's!

[ranger]

I would agree with this analogy, if it were a Union boss withholding benefits from people who DIDNT vote the party line. This is where I think the injustice occurs, although I dont believe it to be a seperation matter, but a Fair Election matter. Inducements of this kind are illegal. Thats why it is illegal to pass out silver dollars or glasses of booze the way they used to, to encourage voters.

Anything that is predicated on securing a vote is illegal. Period, whether its the Catholics or the Teamsters. They can make reccomendations and endorsements, but punishing or rewarding based on voting is against Fair Voting legislation.It is not the Priest or the Church punishing the sinner in the case of the Sacraments. It is the Priest refusing to be party to a different sin. It is not about politics, it is about souls.

[Redheat]

Cpwill, and Ranger Please spare me!

we have Scripture, the Holy Spirit, church tradition, and common sense, those have done us pretty well. however, yes, the catholic church is within it's rights to refuse communion to anyone.

I never said they couldn't refuse communion only that they have no place getting involved in elections. As for your scriptures etc...those are all fine and dandy but proof and fact they do not make. Sorry.

this is about as blatant as a straw man argument as i've ever seen on this forum, as well as being a deliberate misrepresentation of the actual subject you are reffering to.

The abuse and cover-up didn't take place? you lost me here.

probably not, seeing as how donating money is hardly a Holy thing on the level of the eucharist within the catholic church. it's sort of like saying that because i have a Secret-level security clearance (i don't, but if i did) that i should also be given access to nuclear launch codes. the one is hardly the other.

Have no idea what that means.

au contraire, they are now better positioned than ever.

Who's religious run state to you plan to emmulate? Iran? Syria? I'm curious who's lead do you think the Church should follow? Then what will we do with that nasty piece of paper called the constitution?

Ranger:

Individuals within the Catholic are citizens and have every right to involve themselves in politics!

Who is saying they can't? I'm saying the CHURCH has no place in trying to influence politics. Maybe you could tell me which religious run state you think we should follow.

Again, it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with saving souls. That is the purpose of the Church. I differ with your opinion, we have scripture and tradition to make us aware of what God wants from us.

I don't care if you save souls until the cows come home, faith and belief have nothing to do with fact. Your scriptures contridict each other and have no historical basis to rely on. Your traditions have included in inquisition and witch burnings, so excuse me if I don't buy that one.

The Church teaches we are all sinners. Any sinner that repents is forgiven and welcome. Any of the politicians we are concerning ourselves with repent and return to the Sacraments

So if I'm reading this right, Priests who raped small children are just "sinners" and welcome into the church. However people who practice birth control and think woman's decisions about their bodies are between them and their God don't deserve to be accepted into the church. Some standards you got there. How many Catholics do you think there are that don't believe in or practice birth control? If anything the Catholic Church which is losing believer by the boat load would do itself good not to try to inflict itself into the political arena alienating even more parishiners.

It is not the "Pope's moral ethos" we are talking about. It is the Churches, which has not changed in 2000 years. All Catholics know when they are in a spiritual state that would allow them the Sacraments and they know when they are not. The decision is ultimately theirs and the judgement God's!

Well not actully true, many things have changed in 2000 years. The bible is made up of gospels that were edited by men, interpeted by men and put in for political reasons. There have been many changes throughout the church's history so you aren't being accurate. There's the stickler for me the judgment of 'GODS, so how is it that men including the Pope feel free to pass on judgment? If someone gets communion and God' doesn't like it then I guess they will find out when they head up to the pearly gates. Who are you and the pope to decide and judge for God?

[BFPierce]

This entire matter as concerns Kerry is ridiculous. Kerry is not having an abortion, nor is his wife. Is the argument that he can be refused the sacrements for what he thinks? If the church wants to call abortion a sin for their followers, they certainly have the right to do so. But, claiming someone a sinner because he believes others should make up their own mind on the issue is a bit over the top for me, particularly in light of their hands off approach to child molestation by priests.

[Redheat]

This entire matter as concerns Kerry is ridiculous. Kerry is not having an abortion, nor is his wife. Is the argument that he can be refused the sacrements for what he thinks? If the church wants to call abortion a sin for their followers, they certainly have the right to do so. But, claiming someone a sinner because he believes others should make up their own mind on the issue is a bit over the top for me, particularly in light of their hands off approach to child molestation by priests.


Well stated

[cpwill]

Cpwill, and Ranger Please spare me!

?? spare you what? if you are wishing no one would disagree with you, then i fear you are in the wrong forum;)

I never said they couldn't refuse communion only that they have no place getting involved in elections. As for your scriptures etc...those are all fine and dandy but proof and fact they do not make. Sorry.

of course not for you, however, within theology, they are plenty suffecient.

The abuse and cover-up didn't take place? you lost me here.

no, what i am saying is that i fail to see how that has an effect on the church's decision to deny communion with those who support abortion. it's sort of like if i were to say that you can't provide any back up for your opinions here because you have so far refused to provide much back up for your claims in the DaVinci Code thread. it's a straw man argument.

Have no idea what that means.

...i made a distinction between the two acts; how is that hard to understand?

Who's religious run state to you plan to emmulate? Iran? Syria? I'm curious who's lead do you think the Church should follow? Then what will we do with that nasty piece of paper called the constitution?

:confused: i don't believe i have ever advocated a theocracy whatsoever; i stated that the church was now well positioned to serve as a guidance, if nothing else because it has been humbled. every now and then a bit of pain is good for us, and it's good for the church. not quite sure how you reached the conclusion that that means i am hoping for a theocracy; in fact, if you'll read above you may notice that i clearly said to join the two, however, is ultimately to significantly damage the church and the state both.


you are deliberately misinterpreting what we are saying.

[ranger]

Cpwill, and Ranger Please spare me!It is obvious to me that you have no tolerance for those that believe in God, scripture, moral truth, and tradition. It is impossible to have a debate with an intolerant person. Good Day!

[Platypus]

It is obvious to me that you have no tolerance for those that believe in God, scripture, moral truth, and tradition. It is impossible to have a debate with an intolerant person. Good Day!
That's no more obvious than that you have no tolerance for those who lack such belief, and dismissing her opinion like that is no more acceptable than if she had done it to you. Good day yourself.

[ranger]

That's no more obvious than that you have no tolerance for those who lack such belief, and dismissing her opinion like that is no more acceptable than if she had done it to you. Good day yourself.I don't dismiss her opinion just her tactics and dishonest interpretations.

As an example, take the idea that a religion has the right to direct their members away from sin to save their soul. Redheat turns it into I don't care if you save souls until the cows come home, faith and belief have nothing to do with fact. Your scriptures contridict each other and have no historical basis to rely on. Your traditions have included in inquisition and witch burnings, so excuse me if I don't buy that one. Religions can do what religions do and if teachings and beliefs limit the types of politicians you can vote for then that is just a byproduct and not the purpose.

No one mentioned wanting to become a theocracy but Redheat says Who’s religious run state to you plan to emmulate? Iran? Syria? I'm curious who's lead do you think the Church should follow? Then what will we do with that nasty piece of paper called the constitution? Again, Reheat's intolerance forces her to make accusations that are untrue!.

Besides not being accurate and truthful It shows intollerance far beyond any that I have ever showed.

Oh well, if you believe I was using these same tactics I apologize. I have reread the entire thread and don't see it.

[Platypus]

That's much better, addressing as it does specific claims and behavior instead of Redheat personally. Thank you.

[ranger]

That's much better, addressing as it does specific claims and behavior instead of Redheat personally. Thank you.
You are welcome.

[mahayana]

I have a rather different view of Communion than the Church. Despite the many times (in my youth) that I heard ministers whisper "This is my body that was broken for you, This is my blood that was shed for you and for others, for the remission of sins," I always thought Jesus came up with the idea that everytime you broke bread and drank wine with your meal you should think about him. No magic, just a simple request.

At least in 1960 the Catholic Clergy wasn't trying to get folks to vote Republican. Times have changed?

[MikeD4o7]

Well, there you have it... vote for a liberal and you can no longer eat jesus.

[DeathMonkey]

Well, there you have it... vote for a liberal and you can no longer eat jesus.

oh MAN, where are rep points when ya need em? :laughter:

1) If influence is peddled by the Church with its most Holy Rite, that, kids, is votemongering and is illegal. That is, if Salvation, whether a real or imagined benefit, is conditional on ones voting record, this inducement is ILLEGAL.

2) If the Church allows pedophiles to take Communion, then the whole idea of refusing Democrats Communion is a bit screwed up, nes pas?

3) We really need to start electing Atheists to public office. Start with ME as Mayor of Nashville! :devil:

[mahayana]

Well, there you have it... vote for a liberal and you can no longer eat jesus.

Communion as cannibalism kind of goes with the idea that human sacrifice (carried out at Calvary) would please God. As Freud pointed out...

[cpwill]

Well, there you have it... vote for a liberal and you can no longer eat jesus.

:laughter::laughter::laughter:

(wipes tears) okay...wow....lol, oof, even i can admit that was good.:)

[Redheat]

[QUOTE=ranger]I don't dismiss her opinion just her tactics and dishonest interpretations.

I accept that, but what makes YOUR opinion on the matter any more honest then mine? Opinion is based on what YOU think based on YOUR experiences and YOUR interpetation of what you have read, studied etc... So again why is YOUR opinion on the matter more honest then mine?


As an example, take the idea that a religion has the right to direct their members away from sin to save their soul. Redheat turns it into Religions can do what religions do and if teachings and beliefs limit the types of politicians you can vote for then that is just a byproduct and not the purpose.


I have NO idea what that means. Religion has a "right" to do whatever it wishes, and I have a "right" to dismiss it or believe it. Faith is just that "faith" based on your belief but not on fact. You have "faith" I prefer to deal in fact. That doesn't mean I lack spirituality, only that I arrive at my faith and belief in a different path. Doesn't make yours any better nor does it make mine any better.

However to refuse communion because of someones "belief" is hypocritical and I don't think the Pope or any in the Church has a right to decide that someone's "thoughts" are more sinful then anothers.


No one mentioned wanting to become a theocracy but Redheat says Again, Reheat's intolerance forces her to make accusations that are untrue!.

Well cpwill did imply that a theocracy would be preferred. There is a strong movement to make Christianity Americas religion. The implication that bringing Christanity into the realm of politics more assurdly does give the impression of favoring a theocracy.

Besides not being accurate and truthful It shows intollerance far beyond any that I have ever showed.

Again you accuse me of something but fail to support where I was untruthful. I don't find that to be very christian, in that you accuse me of an unethical act without any kind of proof. Accusations of this kind don't help your case, you disagree with my "opinion" and that is fine however please don't presume to speak for God and claim that I lie or even that I'm intolerant. Intolerance is encompassed by many things, my questioning of the Church's motives doesn't speak to intolerance for I don't feel that Christians should not exist nor would I ever seek to silence them. I have no problem with someone needing the Church or believing in their faith, everyone has their own way and I would never dream of telling someone their way was wrong and mine right. I'm hoping that you having "tolerance" would display the same kind of respect.


Oh well, if you believe I was using these same tactics I apologize. I have reread the entire thread and don't see it.

Thanks for the apology, but given what you accused me of prior it kind of loses it's meaning and sincerity.

[Seth928]

Let he without sin cast the first stone. If the Catholic church was serious about its people living in "the catholic way" a good number of their population would be excommunicated today. This isn't a push for moral values it is a political manuver.

[Texsand]

Frankly the Catholic Church has gone back to the days of selling indulgences. Only now it's communion with the explicit threat that they can and will deny communion to those who don't vote as the Catholic hierachy says to. Yep and Jesus even died for the sin of those who would corrupt his ministry to such a degree as to tell people how they should vote. His thought was render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God that which is God's. Clearly voting has nothing to do with religion and the Catholic Church shows us exactly why.

[Redheat]

Frankly the Catholic Church has gone back to the days of selling indulgences. Only now it's communion with the explicit threat that they can and will deny communion to those who don't vote as the Catholic hierachy says to. Yep and Jesus even died for the sin of those who would corrupt his ministry to such a degree as to tell people how they should vote. His thought was render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God that which is God's. Clearly voting has nothing to do with religion and the Catholic Church shows us exactly why.

This from a church that SELLS annulments so their divorced parshiners can act like a pure Catholic again when they remarry. Too bad for the kids of the first marriage, eh?

[Texsand]

Amazing the idea that people actually believe that what God has to offer is something you can buy. Sheesh. But then again that's why so many pay into the tithing thing and the offering plate. I guess they think they can buy their way into heaven. HAH wasn't it WC Fields that said there's a sucker born every minute?

[ranger]

During the 1940's the Church denied communion to those sinners that openly supported the holocaust, During the early history of the south the Church denied communion to those sinners that abused slaves. The Church has a long history of denying the sacraments to non-repentant sinners. Why is it, all of a sudden, you think the Church is trying to ;influence an election? The Church does deny communion to all non-repentant sinners. Those sinners that they are not personally aware of, that do indulge in the sacrament, are committing more sin by doing so. The Church's rule is the Church's rule and they do enforce it.

No matter how much you try to politicize this issue, the Catholic Church denies communion to anyone that is not "properly disposed"? How can I make that more clear? Sure there may be those priests that may wish to influence an election but my guess would be that they would be on your side politically. The Church is full of sinners, for anyone to claim that the Church cannot enforce it's rules because we are sinners is ridiculous.

For those that make such comments as "2) If the Church allows pedophiles to take Communion, then the whole idea of refusing Democrats Communion is a bit screwed up, nes pas?" you are being dishonest! The Church allows all repentant sinners, Democrat, Republican, Independent, pedophiles, murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, etc. to receive communion. It is the non-repentant sinners, such as John Kerry admits to being, that the Church denies communion. The fact that Kerry is a Democrat has nothing to do with it. The fact that he supports "murder" and by his actions helps women procure the abortions is what it is all about. Under those circumstances John Kerry is not "properly disposed" to receive the sacrament as I would not be if I committed the same sin!

[DeathMonkey]

No matter how much you try to politicize this issue, the Catholic Church denies communion to anyone that is not "properly disposed"? How can I make that more clear? Sure there may be those priests that may wish to influence an election but my guess would be that they would be on your side politically. The Church is full of sinners, for anyone to claim that the Church cannot enforce it's rules because we are sinners is ridiculous.

For those that make such comments as "2) If the Church allows pedophiles to take Communion, then the whole idea of refusing Democrats Communion is a bit screwed up, nes pas?" you are being dishonest! The Church allows all repentant sinners, Democrat, Republican, Independent, pedophiles, murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, etc. to receive communion. It is the non-repentant sinners, such as John Kerry admits to being, that the Church denies communion. The fact that Kerry is a Democrat has nothing to do with it. The fact that he supports "murder" and by his actions helps women procure the abortions is what it is all about. Under those circumstances John Kerry is not "properly disposed" to receive the sacrament as I would not be if I committed the same sin!

Priests who were unrepentant were GIVING the sacrament. And poking little boys in the rectory. Its all corrupt bullshoot. If the Catholics excommunicated everyone who deserved it, the Church would be one old lady in Sicily.

[ranger]

Priests who were unrepentant were GIVING the sacrament. And poking little boys in the rectory. Its all corrupt bullshoot. And that makes them great big sinners. It does not however indict the entire Church.

[Redheat]

And that makes them great big sinners. It does not however indict the entire Church.

For the rest of us if we kNOWINGLY cover up a crime we are guilty of that crime and can be tried and sentence on that alone

The Church KNOWINGLY covered up crimes, so they are as guilty as the priest who performed them. Not only that but they failed to support all the children who were raped and choose the Pedophile priest OVER the victims. Not once, not twice BUT HUNDEREDS of times possibly THOUSANDS.

Then to make it even more dispicible they tried to say a kid over a certain age was just a "homosexual" so the priest was only engaging in "homsexual" sex so there was NO abuse!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is probably the most outrageous and disgusting thing the Church did beside aid and abed rapist.

So spare me the talk of sinners, until the Church cleans up it's own sins it's in no position to judge anyone elses.

[ranger]

For the rest of us if we kNOWINGLY cover up a crime we are guilty of that crime and can be tried and sentence on that alone

The Church KNOWINGLY covered up crimes, so they are as guilty as the priest who performed them. Not only that but they failed to support all the children who were raped and choose the Pedophile priest OVER the victims. Not once, not twice BUT HUNDEREDS of times possibly THOUSANDS.

Then to make it even more dispicible they tried to say a kid over a certain age was just a "homosexual" so the priest was only engaging in "homsexual" sex so there was NO abuse!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is probably the most outrageous and disgusting thing the Church did beside aid and abed rapist.

So spare me the talk of sinners, until the Church cleans up it's own sins it's in no position to judge anyone elses.Men within the Church "KNOWLINGLY" committed or covered up crimes and should go to jail. On that we can agree. The Church MUST and is cleaning things up. All that does not alleviate the Church from it's obligation to save souls. And guiding sinners away from sin is what they should be doing. What you do not seem to grasp is that a Priest giving communion to someone they know openly defies the Church is a sin for both parties involved. Are you suggesting the Church must promote further sin until it stops sinning? How does that work? At what point do YOU believe the Church can continue its goal of saving souls?

[cpwill]

For the rest of us if we kNOWINGLY cover up a crime we are guilty of that crime and can be tried and sentence on that alone

The Church KNOWINGLY covered up crimes, so they are as guilty as the priest who performed them. Not only that but they failed to support all the children who were raped and choose the Pedophile priest OVER the victims. Not once, not twice BUT HUNDEREDS of times possibly THOUSANDS.

Then to make it even more dispicible they tried to say a kid over a certain age was just a "homosexual" so the priest was only engaging in "homsexual" sex so there was NO abuse!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is probably the most outrageous and disgusting thing the Church did beside aid and abed rapist.

agreed, those responsible should be hunted out and turned over to the law in the hopes that the law will throw the book at them. repentent priests recieve forgiveness from Christ, however, should never ever be allowed to serve any kind of functionary role within the church again.

So spare me the talk of sinners, until the Church cleans up it's own sins

well guess what, the church being made up of humans it's never going to happen.

it's in no position to judge anyone elses.

and your own logic places you in no position to judge the church;)

[mahayana]

"HAH wasn't it WC Fields that said there's a sucker born every minute?"

Nope, that was P.T.Barnum. W.C. Fields said

"I never drink water. Fish **** in it."

[Redheat]

[QUOTE=cpwill]agreed, those responsible should be hunted out and turned over to the law in the hopes that the law will throw the book at them. repentent priests recieve forgiveness from Christ, however, should never ever be allowed to serve any kind of functionary role within the church again.

Really you think they should be hunted down? funny because they are right there in the Church no need to "hunt them down" so why aren't you going to get them?

well guess what, the church being made up of humans it's never going to happen.

You keep using this excuse and have to say it's about as big as a cop out as it gets! So if I kill someone I should get off because I'm just being "human"? If I steal something do I not get punished because I'm only being "human" Please this is lame


and your own logic places you in no position to judge the church;)

I don't judge the "church" I judge it's actions. I feel I have as much right to judge THEIR actions as they feel they have a right to judge mine.

[Texsand]

"HAH wasn't it WC Fields that said there's a sucker born every minute?"

Nope, that was P.T.Barnum. W.C. Fields said

"I never drink water. Fish **** in it."
Thank you for helping my memory out M. I don't quite know how to delete all the trivia in my brain after almost 50 years of collection.

[Texsand]

During the 1940's the Church denied communion to those sinners that openly supported the holocaust, During the early history of the south the Church denied communion to those sinners that abused slaves. The Church has a long history of denying the sacraments to non-repentant sinners. Why is it, all of a sudden, you think the Church is trying to ;influence an election? The Church does deny communion to all non-repentant sinners. Those sinners that they are not personally aware of, that do indulge in the sacrament, are committing more sin by doing so. The Church's rule is the Church's rule and they do enforce it.

No matter how much you try to politicize this issue, the Catholic Church denies communion to anyone that is not "properly disposed"? How can I make that more clear? Sure there may be those priests that may wish to influence an election but my guess would be that they would be on your side politically. The Church is full of sinners, for anyone to claim that the Church cannot enforce it's rules because we are sinners is ridiculous.

For those that make such comments as "2) If the Church allows pedophiles to take Communion, then the whole idea of refusing Democrats Communion is a bit screwed up, nes pas?" you are being dishonest! The Church allows all repentant sinners, Democrat, Republican, Independent, pedophiles, murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, etc. to receive communion. It is the non-repentant sinners, such as John Kerry admits to being, that the Church denies communion. The fact that Kerry is a Democrat has nothing to do with it. The fact that he supports "murder" and by his actions helps women procure the abortions is what it is all about. Under those circumstances John Kerry is not "properly disposed" to receive the sacrament as I would not be if I committed the same sin!
That is pretty rich considering there were more than a few Catholic priests that supported Hitler and there is evidence that the Pope sanctioned that support. Their rabid anti-communism was the impetus for that. In fact it appears the Catholic hierarchy was working with US intelligence to smuggle Nazi intelligence officers out of Germany and away from prosecution so we could put them to work in the US. Just what we need foxes in the henhouse.

As to theocracy, there is evidence that just such a movement is afoot in the US all one has to do is listen to the people who crow the Founder's intended no separation of church state and then visit this site.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/

[cpwill]

[QUOTE]Really you think they should be hunted down?

yes

funny because they are right there in the Church no need to "hunt them down" so why aren't you going to get them?

A) i'm not catholic, i'm methodist
B) the catholic church's unwillingness to hunt these people down, is, in my opnion, a strong indicator that the RCC has on many levels confused "good for the church" with "good for God."

You keep using this excuse and have to say it's about as big as a cop out as it gets! So if I kill someone I should get off because I'm just being "human"? If I steal something do I not get punished because I'm only being "human" Please this is lame

almost as lame as you're insistance on misrepresenting my argument. i'm not trying to get anyone off; heck, i'm probably pushing for a more serious punishment than they'll get; i'm simply explaining why the church sins.

I don't judge the "church" I judge it's actions. I feel I have as much right to judge THEIR actions as they feel they have a right to judge mine.

oh well heck then, what are you complaining about?

[jamesrage]

All Catholics know that to receive communion when not in such a state is a grievous sin against God. If a politician feels he must vote against the beliefs of the Church he/she knows the consequences. If they attempt to receive communion and are scandalized by a refusal they only have themselves to blame. In the eyes of the Church the Priest would be committing a grievous sin against God by giving communion to someone not properly disposed. The Priest has no other moral options in this situation.quote by ranger

I agree with this.It is a church's responsiblity to make sure that is members do not sin or commit sin and it is the members of that church to not commit sin.