Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CARDINAL RATZINGER ORDERS KERRY COMMUNION BAN!
Newsmax ^ | 7/6/04

Posted on 07/06/2004 12:31:01 PM PDT by areafiftyone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-205 next last
To: ConservativeMan55
He has ordered a ban on communion for John Kerry.

No he hasn't. This "memo" was published in an Italian newspaper. It has not been released publicly by the Vatican; we don't even know for certain if Ratzinger is the author of it.

If he chose to speak publicly and release this document publicly as head of the Congregation for the Faith, then it might influence the American bishops.

As it is, the bishops have voted to allow individual bishops to make their own decisions about refusal of the Eucharist.

21 posted on 07/06/2004 12:55:12 PM PDT by sinkspur (There's no problem on the inside of a kid that the outside of a dog can't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity; areafiftyone
“Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”
... the objective situation of sin being the explicit or constructive intent of the legislator/voter to abort.
22 posted on 07/06/2004 12:55:26 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Who is Ratzinger and what is his position in the church (other than cardinal?)

Prefect (head) of the Congregation for the Faith. He is in charge of resolving doctrinal issues.

Is he a possible "next Pope

No. He's 78.

23 posted on 07/06/2004 12:57:05 PM PDT by sinkspur (There's no problem on the inside of a kid that the outside of a dog can't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

More proof the Vatican wants Kerry in office. They've wanted Bush out ever since he pushed for the war in Iraq. Now they have a chance to make Kerry look like a hero for defying them.


24 posted on 07/06/2004 12:58:25 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
When it comes to moral issues that cut across religious lines, a Catholic politician who says he "doesn't want to impose his beliefs on others" really doesn't have any beliefs to impose in the first place.

I disagree. I think it is entirely principled for a Catholic politician, for example, who is personally opposed to the death penalty, to sign one into law and faithfully impliment it in light of the declared will of the majority of citizens in his state and the legislature.
25 posted on 07/06/2004 12:59:00 PM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Thanks, Sinkspur.

Good info.


26 posted on 07/06/2004 12:59:55 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Supporting Bush/Cheney 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: maestro
Uh,......what does the Pope have to 'say' about this 'private' memorandum?

Wait, are you trying to say the Pope doesn't have control of his Cardinals and what they may or may not send out as memos?

The whole complaint against Kerry is that he is defying the Vatican. Are you suggesting this Cardinal is doing so as well?

27 posted on 07/06/2004 1:00:57 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
Should a catholic politician listen to his constituents or his church when it comes to matters of public policy?

As opposed to any other religious denomination? Either you believe in something or you don't. But don't identify yourself as a member of a group and simultaneously do everything possible to spit on the tenants of said group. And then have the nerve to complain the group doesn't hold you in good stead.

28 posted on 07/06/2004 1:01:50 PM PDT by workerbee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
No. He's 78.

Too young?
29 posted on 07/06/2004 1:03:54 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of AMERICAN Anger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

No, you don't have to worry. Most Democrats who call themselves Catholic are apostates. If receiving Communion was that important to John Kerry, he wouldn't have divorced his first wife, married the second without benefit of annulment, then vote down bills outlawing partial birth abortion. His pro choice votes are in direct violation of Church teaching. So he is publicly saying he's Catholic, in fact using it as a political tool, while standing there publicly violating Church teaching. The Church has every right to refuse him Communion, and while they're at it, they need to shovel Teddy out of the family pew permanently.

It comes down to this: do you want to be a politician or a Catholic who follows his/her religion?


30 posted on 07/06/2004 1:04:26 PM PDT by TheSpottedOwl ("In the Kingdom of the Deluded, the Most Outrageous Liar is King".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

I'd like to see the Bell, Book and Candle ritual personally.

Anything which makes things rougher for Kerry and the "Swimmer" makes me happy.

If you can't abide by the rules of an organization - leave.
Maybe they should start their own church - the Church of the "If-It-Feels-Good-do-It" Assembly of Contemporary Hedonists.


31 posted on 07/06/2004 1:04:52 PM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Wait, are you trying to say the Pope doesn't have control of his Cardinals (and Bishops) and what they may or may not send out as memos?

?......When is control,.....CONTROL?

(private vs. public?)

32 posted on 07/06/2004 1:05:36 PM PDT by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Title is a bit misleading.

Should say, "Private Memo States Catholic Politicians Should Be Banned from Communion", as the memo does not specifically mention Kerry.

Whatever their intents are would be one thing, but the headline is inaccurate. In all fairness and exactness.

33 posted on 07/06/2004 1:05:51 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (***Since The Iraq War & Transition Period Began, NORTH KOREA HAS MANUFACTURED (8) NUCLEAR WEAPONS***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Kinda ironic, JFK had to show he's wasn't a papist pawn of rome and jfk has to show he is one.

So, Guiliani and Pataki are barred too?


34 posted on 07/06/2004 1:07:12 PM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

Umm,

How about some perspective?

I mean, the current law allows, nation wide, that a medical practitioner can take a scissors and jam them into the brainstem of a term (full grown), totally awake, unanesthetized, unsedated, fetus (or baby).

The fetus or baby can feel it. No question. The baby also feels the next step, that of a suction catheter sucking out its brains from the base of its skull. There is no anesthesia for the fetus. The mother, yes she gets regional anesthesia and sedation. But next to nothing for the baby or fetus. Whatever crosses over to the placenta, then to the baby, which is a negligible amount.

There is no screaming of the fetus. This is because the sinister practitioners of this satanic ritual now do it feet first: The baby's screams are muffled by the mother's uterus and birth canal. More correctly, it can never really draw a breath to make a sound. The baby is withdrawn after it is dead. No troublesome screams.

This occurs very frequently in the US; maybe a hundred a day, who knows. The feds prohibit any statistics be kept.

Overall, abortions of all kinds, early to mid to late, are about as common as births.

So the odds of a child nowadays in the US to be born rather than curretted alive and sucked out into a disposal, are about even.

And you were worried about what again?


35 posted on 07/06/2004 1:07:14 PM PDT by caddie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
How about the Catholic politician who is personally opposed to spousal abuse signing a law that permits husbands to beat their wives?

The whole notion of "personal opposition" is idiotic, because it presumes that there is a line that divides what is morally objectionable from what should or should not be permitted under the law.

Remember -- we're talking about an elected legislator or executive here, not a judge. A judge is obligated to render decisions based on the law, not on what he thinks the law ought to say. A legislator or executive, on the other hand, is not bound by such limitations -- because the laws in question haven't yet been passed.

In Catholic doctrine there is no such thing as a half-@ssed approach to government. If someone tells me that he is "personally opposed" to the death penalty but is willing to sign a capital punishment bill into law, then I can only conclude one of two things: 1) he isn't really "personally opposed" to the death penalty at all, or 2) he doesn't think the issue is terribly important in the first place, and therefore his "personal opposition" is about as relevant as his preference for a favorite dessert.

36 posted on 07/06/2004 1:07:46 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy

Hope so.


37 posted on 07/06/2004 1:08:04 PM PDT by b4its2late (John Kerry changes positions more often than a Nevada prostitute!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona; Salvation; NYer; marshmallow

bump


38 posted on 07/06/2004 1:08:06 PM PDT by MSSC6644
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Ratzinger got a lot of mentions but not nearly enough votes back in 1978 when the two John Pauls were elected. He had been Archbishop of Munich until '77 when Pope Paul made him a cardinal. So, he had some consideration back then, but his time has passed.


39 posted on 07/06/2004 1:08:33 PM PDT by mak5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

has anyone seen ted kennedy taking communion


40 posted on 07/06/2004 1:08:52 PM PDT by freddiedavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-205 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson