Posted on 05/20/2004 6:19:23 AM PDT by NYer
Edited on 05/20/2004 8:46:00 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Forty-eight Roman Catholic members of Congress have warned in a letter to Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington that U.S. bishops will revive anti-Catholic bigotry and severely harm the church if they deny Communion to politicians who support abortion rights.The letter's signers, all Democrats, include at least three House members with strong antiabortion voting records.
"For many years Catholics were denied public office by voters who feared that they would take direction from the Pope," they wrote. ". . . While that type of paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past, attempts by Church leaders today to influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice, which so many of us have worked so hard to overcome."
The three-page letter, dated May 10, was sent to McCarrick because he heads a task force of U.S. bishops that is considering whether, and how, the church should take action against Catholic politicians whose public positions are at odds with Catholic doctrine.
McCarrick's spokesman, Susan Gibbs, said he would not comment on the letter. She said the seven-member task force is "listening to many different voices" and will grant the 48 House members' request for a meeting. "They will be heard. It just hasn't been arranged yet," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Thanks! I'm distributing this to my e-mail list. There's a lot of confusion out there among Catholics.
I agree. But not all of the American bishops can be painted with this brush. There are some who are above reproach, as well as some who have inherited the scandals from their predecessors.
Politicos (or is that "politicoes"?) would have you believe that NOTHING is superior to politics: them.
This country has more royalty today than the British Isles has had in its entire history; every elected official (with some exceptions, to be sure) considers him or herself to be royalty and expects to be treated as such.
So be it. Now it's time to go to war.
If a politician supports abortion he should remove himself from the Catholic Church, or any Christian church for that matter. The line is in the sand, criminal politicians will not be allowed to hide behind the piety of church membership for votes while destroying church doctrine.
We also do not believe that it is the obligation of legislators to prohibit all conduct which we may, as a matter of personal morality, believe is wrong."
Say what? If you believe it is wrong and your Church forbids it, what's the conflict? Oh, yeah, votes!
Will no one rid me of this turbulent deacon?
Sinkspur. We have Christ's own word that the Church will survive. There will always be at least some truth-telling bishops with faithful hearers.
IMHO, this is the result of many years of loose control within the Church - much of the reason I dropped out all those years ago.
Since the people were allowed to do what they wanted, they are now resisting when the doctrines of the Church are being imposed as they should.
Now that I am back, I am glad to see the Church taking the bull by the horns, but I am not surprised they are meeting with some serious resistance.
"Some Republicans are pro-abortion"
This is the key right here. The GOP as an organization, does not support abortion, therefore funds can be used to support the organization. I would not support an individual republican who was pro-murder.
And being a faithful, attempting not to sin christian, is NOT the "slippery slope". Revelations tells us that there will be those who say evil is good and good is evil - real christians recognize this and dont mind the slander.
Most would rather be slandered or taken to task, for being true to the bible, than go to hell for placating sinners.
We also do not believe that it is the obligation of legislators to prohibit all conduct which we may, as a matter of personal morality, believe is wrong."Thomas Aquinas addressed this problem in the Summa Theologica, agreeing in principle, but with an important qualifier:
Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.
The Catholic Church is corrupt and morally bankrupt.
Langevin's not a Republican. The RI means Rhode Island.
Orlando Coadjutor Bishop Wenski says Bishops are competent to say what is required to be a Catholic...
"You cannot have your 'waffle' and your 'wafer'"
Any Catholic on this side of Judgment Day can call himself a “practicing Catholic”. After all, our earthy pilgrimage in this “valley of tears” is our one time opportunity to “practice” Catholicism until we get it right. But “getting it right” for a practicing Catholic means conforming oneself to the will of God as revealed to us through Scripture and Tradition and as definitely set forth by the teaching authority of the Church. A practicing Catholic cannot invoke “conscience” to defy or disregard what the Church definitely holds as true – for a practicing Catholic doesn’t create his own truth but forms his conscience according to the Truth.
Invincible ignorance, culpable willfulness, or ingrained habits of sin might explain why a self-described “practicing Catholic” might dissent from one or more of the definitive teachings of the Church in word, thought or deed and still think that he or she is a Catholic in good standing able to be admitted to the Eucharist. One of these factors may explain such behavior but none can excuse it.
We can explain, for example, why Pontius Pilate, though he personally was convinced of Jesus’ innocence, could not bring himself to “impose” his views on the mob. Yet, he did not demand to participate with the Apostles in “breaking of the bread” as the Mass was first called. While we do not judge his ultimate fate – for only God can judge the subjective state of his soul – we nevertheless cannot excuse his cowardice. Had Pontius Pilate shown up and presented himself for communion, the apostles certainly would had admitted him to communion – but only after he had first repented and reconciled himself to God and the Church.
See full pastoral statement "POLITICIANS AND COMMUNION" at
http://www.orlandodiocese.org/our_diocese/wenski/columns/politics.htm
Who is Rosa and what is Emily's list?
"The bishops seem to be including opposition to the death penalty in their pro-life stance. There is a big difference between the taking of innocent life and just punishment of criminals."
They're not making it grounds for denying communion.
"ingrained habits of sin"
Now, that is what it is all about!
The Post says: "McCarrick's spokesman, Susan Gibbs, said he would not comment on the letter. She said the seven-member task force is 'listening to many different voices' and will grant the 48 House members' request for a meeting. They will be heard. It just hasn't been arranged yet,'" she said.
No time better than to explain to them all at one time that they cannot be considered Catholics in good faith and be pro-death. Privately warned --- The canon law can then be enforced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.