Posted on 03/15/2013 7:44:34 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Vice President Joe Biden, Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez and Georgetown University President John J. DeGioia will represent the United States at the Mass of Inauguration for Pope Francis on March 19th, according to the Daily Caller.
I sincerely hope Pope Francis denies Communion to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Not because I’m a jerk, but because it’s for their own good.
In order to receive Communion worthily you must 1) be in a state of grace 2) have made a good confession since your last mortal sin 3) believe in transubstantiation 4) observe the Eucharistic fast and 5) not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicvote.org ...
You’re welcome, but I should be clear: I’m no expert. And from what I understand, a lot of this is based on precedent, not canon law.
For the longest time, I had a tagline from St. John Crysostom, “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” This was “the golden-mouthed” complaint that bishops were failing to admonish wicked sinners back in the fourth century. He was reminding them that they take on the responsibility in eternal judgment for any sins that were committed because they failed to correct moral failures among their flock.
What bubble? He is still a priest, if that’s what you mean. I’m pleased to see that Pope Francis has a keen sense of contempt for the contemptible, but I’m not imagining that he’ll trump up some charges so that Cardinal Law faces a criminal penalty.
Cardinal Law stands accused of nothing other than moral cowardice and stupid administration. In the years since, the church and the state have both created rules and laws requiring affirmative steps to prevent the atrocities that took place in Boston, but they don’t apply in his case. Now, if some clever lawyer finds some way of nailing Law for what he failed to do, I’m all cheers for that, but I’m unaware of any canonical penalty they could apply to this guy to force him to spend the rest of his days wearing burlap and ashes.
Until then, I am happy to know that there is a God in Heaven who claims vengeance for his own.
Now, however, we have a usurper in the White House and many godless reside in Congress a d certainly a number of them dwell in the Supreme Court.
Sad to witness acts enough to destroy Sodom & Gomorrah well affirmed throughout our land!
Cardinal Law seems to be doing fine and still holds his position with the organization and is still living within it, they didn’t remove him from the organization and let him find his own life as a regular person living on a pension.
He is still inside the bubble of the leadership and living quarters, he is still part of the elite insiders living among the chosen.
People who really care about their freedom don't end up reduced to praying the USSC stops BarryCare after it passes.
Human nature hasn't changed, so with rare exceptions, yes, they are all crooks or at least turn into crooks by the time they've been there four or five years. Most end up petty thiefs who feather their own nest in return for small favors and a few are major crooks who try to control the petty thieves. That's why the 17th Amendment is so horrible, it destroys an important check on human nature. The 17th wasn't about who got to decide on who would be State Senators as much as it was about making sure ideas and ideals of the majority of the people in the State as reflected in the State Legislature dictated what the State Senators would fight for and against.
Once the 17th was passed, the Federal crooks would always have the upper hand when dealing with a Senator, and would have as much influence over became Senators in a State as the State did. Once someone at the Federal level buys themself a Senator they can pour millions of dollars and thousands of free manhours into keeping them in place. Without the 17th Amendment, State Legislatures could recall and replace a Senator for whatever reason they thought sufficient. When power in a State changed from one party to the other or when something important to the State was at issue and a Senator was suspect the State could replace that Senator to ensure the State's interests were protected and the Senator didn't vote against what the majority in the State want.
There will always be some degree of corruption in politics and politics will always attract crooks. The only thing you can do is fragment power to the extent that the worst thing you'll ever have to face is moving twenty miles down the road to avoid the crooks when a county or city government gets out of hand. That means taking power away from the State government and putting it back in the hands of cities and counties right along with taking the power back from the Federal level.
Fragmenting and returning power to the lowest possible level of government should be the clearly stated goal of the Tea Party and every other group that's really conservative. Turn the fascist propaganda slogan of "power to the people" on it's ear by actually returning power to the people instead of handing their "representatives" more and more power and money "on behalf of the people". Even if that were all accomplished there would still be more than enough corruption around but at least it would be corruption that could be avoided until it can be ended.
When States don't have the 17th Amendment bridle in the mouths of their Senators, of course every level of the Federal government is going to become more and more like a feudal nobility. Even the lowest Federal employees are functionally exempt from the thousands of laws the nobility pass. At the very least the Federal lackeys on the lower rungs know that as long as they keep the machine running the way the nobility wants it run the rules will be ignored for them even if they're not technically exempt.
A nation born in rebellion against monarchy handed it's children over to "professionals" to educate and next thing you know, the Federal government reestablished a monarchy and the people educated by "professionals" are so gullible that they think changing who gets to be the king every four years means everything is still run according to the Constitution.
It comes down to whether or not Pope Francis will make it clear these people have excommunicated themselves.
Well, as a matter of fact, Pope Francis has done exactly that with regard to politicians who vote in favor of abortion in Argentina. I suspect Biden and Pelosi will be told to not present themselves because they will be refused if they do. If they ignore that advice, I believe Pope Francis will refuse them right in front of all the media vultures who probably helped King Barry come up with this deliberate challenge and insult.
You see, if they're not refused, there's a filing cabinet full of articles and commentary ready to go for slandering the Catholic Church over permitting them to violate Canon Law because they're public figures, but not ignoring "the little guy" who's violates Canon Law by being divorced or living with his boyfriend. If they're refused, that's the other filing cabinet full of articles and commentary ready to go slandering the Catholic Church for refusing them over their "political" views as if murdering infants has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.
Pope Francis knows that's how these people work and I suspect he'd rather have them using the second filing cabinet and spewing the lie that abortion is a political and not a moral issue.
JMHO
So- What each individual Cardinal believes about giving Communion to public servants who openly support abortion/gay marriage/euthanasia, is the only decisive factor here?
No wonder there are so many confused Catholics about these issues.
As I understand it; abortion/open support for abortion/gay marriage/euthanasia, are all grave sins.
You are not supposed to take Communion if you have done any of them.
But if politicians, who publicly support these sins, are not chastised for receiving Communion- What kind of message does that give Catholics, and everyone else?
Are these sins not that serious, because-
Lib Catholic thinking out loud: "Hey,"Our politicians openly support these,and they still go to communion"?
It would explain extremely liberal Catholics thinking it's all OK, and getting HC every week.
I'm Catholic, and I don't get why the Church lets this go on. It sends mixed messages, IMHO.
It a combination of things.
First, there is a large percentage of priests and bishops who don't actually believe what the Church teaches. They are post-modernists and many of them are homo-socialists. They believe the Church should conform to the zeitgeist.
Then there are those priests and bishops who don't like to take sides or make waves. They go along to get along.
Then there are the priests and bishops who believe in the teachings of the Church. Of these, there is a small minority who have the courage to make a stand against public scandal.
.
In all fairness, who among us would want to endure being Alinskyized, especially if most of our colleagues either denied their support or even joined the opposition?
I suspect you are engaging in wishful thinking. Nobody wants an "incident" at such a joyous occasion.
.
Nobody will be refused Communion.
Comtinue to pray II Chron. 7:14 to heal our land.
This article is all a lie, then,
Pope Francis clear on denying Communion to those who facilitate abortion
And this one is meaningless,
Vatican Chief Justice: Pro-Abortion Politicians Must Not Receive Holy Communion
because, "everyone knows" that standing up for what the Church teaches isn't all that important anyway.
I hope one of these days there will be an occasion those who are authorities on why it's always a good time to ignore what the Church teaches think is a suitable venue for the Pope to stand by what he said. Of course, it shouldn't be an occasion when someone might be so shocked that they use their desert fork instead of their salad fork when the salad is served.
How is that possible? I went through RCIA. I don't remember any ambiguous teachings about Catholicism.
Why are they even Catholic in the first place? Why not go be priests, bishops in the church of "Whateverism" (or the Episcopal church), or they could start their own church?
And if these are "End Times" -Aren't all these people in real danger of going to Hell for all eternity?
I mean shouldn't someone point out to them what the teachings of the Church are, and that they are on the wrong track, before its too late?
For the record, IMO no one has done more damage to Christianity than smug, self righteous, arrogant, finger-pointing, so-called Christians, who spend all their time and efforts pointing out the errors of others and never once think to point in the mirror first, and work on themselves.
But when you have a situation where there is massive confusion about what the Church teaches, shouldn't it be made clear, so that no one is mis-led?
I.E. Maybe they don't have to go all "Fire and Brimstone" speech, and then publicly deny the politicians Communion, but can they can take them aside privately, and spell it out for them?
Then make an effort to inform the people of what the teachings of the Church are?
I wonder- What is the bigger sin-Being a politician who supports grave sins and takes Communion? Or being in the Church hierarchy and supporting giving Communion to politicians who openly promote/support grave sins?
Many of these people must think that they can wait until the last 5 minutes of their life to "get themselves right with the Lord" .
(or Soros probably thinks he can write the Almighty a big check and buy his way in.)
I had this type of discussion with an ardent atheist. He said he thought it was BS that a person could live their whole life doing bad things and be forgiven everything at the last second. How can it be good for people to think they can go through life doing horrible, even evil things and have it all forgiven at the last second of life?
I said" God knows EVERYTHING about you." So if the person who is asking for forgiveness, at the last second, is truly sorry, in his/her heart, that person will be forgiven.
But if the person is only asking because they think they can lie to the Lord, and pretend to be sorry, because they don't want to be punished- that it can't happen for that person- Because The Lord knows what's really in our hearts and He would KNOW that the person is not sorry, and only scared, and trying to get out of going to hell.
I don't know what these leftist Catholics and Clergy are thinking. They are literally "playing with fire".
Yes. But who knows what's going on in their heads?
Regarding Church teaching, since the publication of the Catechism, ignorance is no excuse.
In his 70s he was relieved of his position here because of sex scandals involving children and transferred to the base, and there he lives, still carrying titles and living within the bosom of the organization.
He could have been merely let go and/or retired to become a regular person and have to pay his own rent and live among the common folk here like the rest of us.
The guy is doing just fine and safely living in Rome, is he still a Cardinal? What are his titles?
Bases? Bubbles? Bosom of the organization? You say a lot of nonsense in a lot of very figurative ways. What an absurd way to say he was stripped of his position, and withdrawn to a foreign country. YOu’re simply determined to characterize things the way you want to and frankly I’ve wasted too much time on you already.
No, I am saying that Pope Francis cannot possibly have control over the entire Vatican like some kind of dictator, not after a few days as pope, perhaps not ever. The Vatican is run by a bureaucracy, and that bureaucracy reflects the wishes of the bureaucrats. To think that one man can come in and whip it into shape in a matter of days is ridiculous. And how do we know he would be willing to embarrass his guests and cause an international uproar over this? John Paul II wasn't. Benedict XVI wasn't.
And we know Timothy Cardinal Dolan wasn't:
.
What Pope Francis said as cardinal is to be commended. It was strong words-WORDS. If I were to see documentation that a single Argentinian politician was denied communion, I would be even more impressed.
This is our great concern, but we mustn't fool ourselves into believing it is the Catholic hierarchy's concern. We conservative Catholics want our shepherds to be strong leaders, to stand up against the scandal of pro-abort, homosexual-promoting politicians' profaning of the Holy Eucharist, but where have they ever done this? Show me ONE credible report of one of these "Catholic" politicians actually being refused Communion anywhere in the world. ONE.
Isn’t Rome the base, isn’t that the bubble, the bosom of the church organization?
You seem to be trying to portray him as being in some sort of unpleasant captivity, or serving some punishment, but that doesn’t seem to be the case at all.
He is a free man and retired, he can live most anywhere that he wants to, including here in the United states he isn’t exiled or a captive or a prisoner, forced to live at the heart of the church organization in wonderful Rome.
The guy could have just been let go and forced to support himself like a regular Joe on his pension living next door to regular people, maybe even paying his own gardeners.
The guy is doing just fine and safely living in Rome, is he still a Cardinal? What are his titles?
They think they know better. They think they are enlightened. They thing they are fighting to make a difference and drag the Catholic Church out of the dark ages into a brave new world.
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.