Should the activist Catholic bishops deny communion to Ryan?

[olegramps]

Several Catholic bishops and some priests went as far as saying that Communion should be denied to any Catholic politician who has any reservation in not supporting their absolute condemnation of abortion. Even though pro-choice is lawfully protected as a fundamental right, they refuse to accept that the majority of citizens do not support their stance and are determined to impose their will on everyone without regard to their basic right of freedom of conscience. I would also point out that their absolute condemnation without exception is not even support by the majority of Catholic women. Approximately 64% of Catholics don't agree that abortion is wrong in every case and only between 16-22 percent of Catholic women condemn it in all cases while some 58% don't believe they are bound by the church's teaching. (See the Wikipedia article on Catholic and Abortion)

The bishops appear to be able to excuse a number of Catholic politicians who absolutely advocate massive cuts in programs to even feed the poor. They are demanding cuts in programs that feed innocent children whose parents are caught up in an economic collapse that can be directly attributable to the very polices that the advocate. The Ryan budget that Romney has heartedly endorsed lacks even the most basic of Christian values that are the bedrock of Jesus teachings of our obligation to our fellow mankind. Jesus did not mince any words in saying that it was the criteria for salvation as he said where you see those who are suffering there you see me.

What can be more fundamentally un-Christian than the willingness to starve children? To understand Ryan and his cadre one only has to read "Atlas Shrugged" by the atheist Ayn Rand. Ryan not only admired her philosophy, but demanded that his staff read her Godless works in which she regarded the poor as nothing more than parasites who should be exterminated like vermin.

[hedgehog]

1. no

[olegramps]

2. I see that you subscribe to the Double Standards, one for bishop bootlickers...

[rug]

3. No, it's not a political shuttlecock.

And I'm not a bootlicker.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

5. Depends

If you say that politicians who are not steadfastly anti-abortion should be denied communion, then you must say that Ryan, who denies the Church's clear teaching on social issues, should be denied communion.

I would suggest that the prescripts of Canon Law should be followed:

Canon 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

And who are prohibited by law?

Canon 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

That is the official stance on the subject

[DPC.Comment]

10. Au contraire, mon frere...

My thinks your heart is in the right place, but your theology is a tad wobbly. Cogitate a bit on my response to OleGramps (below) where I talk about intent and severity. Cheers,

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

12. I quoted Canon Law on the subject

You merely gave an unsupported opinion. If you have something better to offer, then I suggest you do so.

[DPC.Comment]

13. Yes, and....

Yes, and right wingers lift and use one particular particular quote from Leviticus to condemn gays. That playbook doesn't work whether on the left or the right. Care to take another stab at pulling a single line of cannon law to support or self created reality?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

15. First, it's "canon law", not "cannon law"

Second, you are apparently unfamiliar with the term. Canon law is the official code of laws for the Catholic Church. It is analogous to the United States Code for the United States.

As I said, I quoted the relevant law on the subject. You gave an unsupported opinion. Instead of sneering, and telling me to study theology (BTW, I happen to have a masters in history of religion, and I had to study a great deal of theology for that), why don't YOU try supporting your opinion. The Summa Theologica is a good place to start.

[47of74]

6. The eucharist should not be used as a weapon

[olegramps]

7. That was the intent of my post.

Some radical bishops what to impose penalties on any Catholic politican who says that they are personally opposed to abortion, but as an elected offical they must be faithful to the Constitution and therefore must recognise that some citizens don't share the church's demands. When a politican, such as Ryan, proposes cuts in programs that will harm the most innocent, in my opinion he is taking a basically un-Christian postion because he is proposing actions that can be clearly demonstrated to be contridictory of the basic teachings of Jesus.

[DPC.Comment]

9. Dear OleGramps

I promise...this time no "sack" comments. Let me get started...

I believe you are correct to suggest some politicians should be sanctioned by the church for immoral social programs. The dilemma, it seems is in identifying the gravity of sin and the intent. Since I can no longer quote Augustine, I'll limp along by using his works as background to help formulate my response.

Let's explore further:
- suppose a politician cuts off a program with the intent of denying life-saving cheese to a pregnant mother so that she will be forced to go to Planned Parenthood for help, where a bag of saline solution will magically fly across the room to be injected into her uterus, thereby causing the death of the unborn child, then I'd say that is both intentional and grave.
- now suppose a politician cuts off a program with the honest intent of having the Friars of the Holy Cheeses feed her with non-governmental donations, and that doesn't happen and the baby dies. That would be severe but unintentional.

The church distinguishes between the two. It's all in the Catechism which you can get online for free, or drag your sack (doh! I'm sorry...I promised I'd refrain from that...my bad) down to the Catholic bookstore and read up!

Cheers,
YoungBuck

[DPC.Comment]

8. % of Catholics who support this, that, or the other

Dear OleGramps,

In the context of Catholicism, the percentage of parishioners who support this, that, or the other (be it abortion, ordination of women, the number of stars in Mary's crown, etc.) is irrelevant because members of the Catholic Church have no right to vote on the organization's moral teachings. One may not like it, but one doesn't get to vote on these things and one doesn't have a right to change the nature of the Catholic Church because a particular rule doesn't settle well with one's self-created reality. One does have an absolute right to form one's own church and in that church one can vote on what you consider to be moral. Yay for the right to get up an walk out! Now...if you are so far along in the world that your OleGramps sack is already getting caught in the bicycle chain, you may not have time for that so perhaps I can introduce you to the UU or Presbyterian Church (the let you vote!), or maybe you'd be more comfortable worshipping a tree stump at Lilith Fair? I mean hey -- I'm down with that if that is your bag (may I say "sack" again...hehe), but just don't confuse your right to believe as you will, with a parishoners 'right' to impose his personal morality on the institution of the Church.

Hugs & Kisses,
YoungBuck
PS: sorry about the 'sack' thing...it was too funny to NOT do it. hehe....

[rug]

14. If you say sack one more time you will be.

Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1221585

[olegramps]

16. Sorry, to say but your ignorance of early church history only exceeds your pompous attitude.

The leaders of the church during the early formative years were elected by the membership. It was a steady progression in which the laity were disenfranchised from any voice in church and relegated to the position of pay and pray. This also applies to the concentration of power in the papacy. This was recognized by the bishops during Vatican II in which they encouraged greater participation by the laity. The same is also true in regard to issue of collegiality in which the council wanted greater participation by the bishops in determining doctrine. Both of these concepts were rejected by John Paul II who appointed only those bishops who agreed with his supremacy of the papacy notions. It is apparent that you are of the my way or the highway Catholic. The very attitude that has led to the massive exodus of especially young Catholics.

[Bradical79]

17. Where does the Catholic Church get its money?

Parishioners have the full right to not donate to the church, not attend church services, speak out in public against immoral activity of the Church, and so on. Even though Catholics no longer have voting power through a democratic process, there are many ways in which they can influence the church. The Church completely lacks the ability to enforce loyalty these days without consent.

[hrmjustin]

18. I am never for denying communion to someone. n/t