Catholicism, Kerry, and Abortion
" target="_blank">CNN Article
I was reading this story and I got to thinking about the variety of problems my PoMo church is facing over all sorts of issues.
If the supreme authority for Catholics on earth, The Vatican, says that abortion is a no-no, then shouldn't Roman Catholics, regardless of political persuasion, hold the line if they place value in their religious beliefs? Or is this OK because certain people can pick and choose what Vatican edicts they will follow?
What I am getting at is this: How do Catholics view Kerry's move, or more importantly, the decentralizing of power from Rome? I assume there are some Catholics floating around here somewhere who can speak up. When we Protestants have doctrine issues, we just split up into a few hundred sects.
*This is not meant to be a thread focused on Kerry and/or Abortion. That's not the main topic. I would like to discuss the amount of freedom that American Catholics are allowed in their acceptance of Rome.
Quote:
Vatican cardinal fuels religious dispute
VATICAN CITY (CNN) -- Just hours before Sen. John Kerry was scheduled to discuss his support for legalized abortion at a large women's rights rally Friday in Washington, a top Vatican cardinal called on priests to deny communion to Catholic politicians like Kerry who take that stance.
In a news conference to announce the release of a document aimed at a crackdown on possible abuses in celebrating Mass, Cardinal Francis Arinze was asked if a politician who supports abortion rights should be denied communion. (Full story)
"Yes. Objectively, the answer is clear," Arinze said. "The person is not fit. If he shouldn't receive it, then it shouldn't be given."
Vatican cardinal fuels religious dispute
VATICAN CITY (CNN) -- Just hours before Sen. John Kerry was scheduled to discuss his support for legalized abortion at a large women's rights rally Friday in Washington, a top Vatican cardinal called on priests to deny communion to Catholic politicians like Kerry who take that stance.
In a news conference to announce the release of a document aimed at a crackdown on possible abuses in celebrating Mass, Cardinal Francis Arinze was asked if a politician who supports abortion rights should be denied communion. (Full story)
"Yes. Objectively, the answer is clear," Arinze said. "The person is not fit. If he shouldn't receive it, then it shouldn't be given."
I was reading this story and I got to thinking about the variety of problems my PoMo church is facing over all sorts of issues.
If the supreme authority for Catholics on earth, The Vatican, says that abortion is a no-no, then shouldn't Roman Catholics, regardless of political persuasion, hold the line if they place value in their religious beliefs? Or is this OK because certain people can pick and choose what Vatican edicts they will follow?
What I am getting at is this: How do Catholics view Kerry's move, or more importantly, the decentralizing of power from Rome? I assume there are some Catholics floating around here somewhere who can speak up. When we Protestants have doctrine issues, we just split up into a few hundred sects.
*This is not meant to be a thread focused on Kerry and/or Abortion. That's not the main topic. I would like to discuss the amount of freedom that American Catholics are allowed in their acceptance of Rome.
Comments
At root, one of the key points of almost any religion is that it is voluntary. God gave you free will and the choice between good and evil. You choose to be good. You choose to sin. If you choose good because you have a gun pointed at your head it takes away any meaning that act may have had. I would think that Christians would be somewhat indifferent to civil affairs, at least as it regards their religious beliefs.
Originally posted by Jubelum
...Or is this OK because certain people can pick and choose what Vatican edicts they will follow? .... I would like to discuss the amount of freedom that American Catholics are allowed in their acceptance of Rome.
This is actually interesting as I believe the Pope came out against the invasion of Iraq yet the American Bishops and other clergy were mostly silent on that topic. I guess they get to pick and choose their edicts as well.
Not that the Church should condemn or expect Bush, per se, to follow their edicts, since he's not Catholic.
But his brother is, and I doubt he gets much grief about his anti-poor stands from the Bishop of Tallahassee.
In truth, the Church is obsessed with sex, and totally contradictory about it to boot. They condemn means of preventing unnecessary impregnations, yet they also condemn the poverty that this policy produces, while also condemning abortion, even to save the life of the mother*. They condemn unmarried sex, effectively demanding that gay Catholics be celibate for their entire lives. They also demand celibacy of their priests. But they don't want gays to become priests, and when those priests screw around, be it with adults or children, the Church covers the situations up and if it condemns anyone, it's often the other party**.
So the Church gives a pass to the Repulicans and right wingers who run roughshod over the poor in violation of the Church's most core teachings, while condeming liberals who don't tow the line on the far more marginal matters of sex. It's a double standard.
However, strangely enough, the laity in America seems to apply the same double standard, only in reverse. More Catholics will vote for the Democrat in any given election, mostly based on their positions on social issues relating to poverty and the like, though the average Catholic is probably far more closely aligned with GOP positions on matters moral. This infuriates Church leaders to no end, I'd imagine.
Kirk
* - I'd love to know why, precisely, the Catholic Church values the life of the unborn child over that of the mother in all cases. Probably stems from teh institutional mysoginy that runs from Vatican City on down.
** - When dealing with adults. I've not heard the church condemn the children who were molested, nor would I expect such thoughts to even enter the minds of the Church's leaders. They're sexually repressed, power hungry little trolls, but they do have some tinges of basic human decency left in them.
I don't think many people would care.
and I had never heard of being against pre marital sex either...
So they probably don't give a **** about the US
This bishop is sick. I hate this moral censorship.
It's funny how the Vatican doesn't have an issue with pedophiles giving communion and trying to 'spread the word of God' yet they have a problem with someone saying that women should have the right to choose if they want to have an abortion or not (while still being against the practice of abortion). Give me a break.
Second, they want to deny him communion and/or excommunicate him for failing to enshring Papal doctrine in civil law??? Because he's unwilling to impose his beliefs on the unbelieving? What does that mean for the rest of us Catholics? I could be excommunicated for failing to covert my Protestant neighbor at gunpoint? Good Catholic politicians are only allowed to promote the creation of a Catholic theocracy in the US? And if we fail to be sufficiently assertive, we can be booted from the Church? When did the RCC become the Christian branch of al-Quaeda?
**** all that. Or, see the abundant NT passages on separation of church and state (from neutrino's "give unto Ceasar" line to Jesus's frequent condemnation of the Pharissees and Sadducees).
Catholics in authority need to start speaking out, loudly and in public, on CNN and for local papers, against these renegade arch-conservative bishops. I think it's reached the point where, for the good of the Church, they can no longer be ignored.
1) Is it the Governor's position that pro-Choice politicians should not be allowed to take communion?
2) Does the governor himself take communion when he attends church?
3) Does the governor attend church regularly? Did he attend church yesterday? Did he take communion?
Phone: 916-445-2841
The point here is not to harass pro-Choice Catholic politicians. The point is to highlight the inconsistent treatment by the media of John Kerry. Kerry has not made his religion a central part of his campaign - all he's done is gone to church as he apparently does regularly. Now, suddenly, the media aided by right wing operatives and some opportunist Bishops, have decided that only pro-Choice Catholic Democrats should have their lives and activities within a church scrutinized.
The media only feel the need to ask these questions of Kerry, so we can ask them of other politicians.
Atrios
1) Is it Governor Pataki's position that pro-Choice politicians should not be allowed to take communion?
2) Does the governor himself take communion when he attends church?
3) Does the governor attend church regularly? Did he attend church yesterday? Did he take communion?
518-474-8390
Atrios
202-224-6324
This should be fun.
So sayeth Karen Hughes
A vote for John Kerry is a vote for Bin Laden. This will be the mantra. Wait. Soon it will start...
Then, you can ask them why they aren't mentioning the fact that the leaders of George Bush's Church opposed the war in Iraq.
...and read this post at Body and Soul which includes this bit by Amy Sullivan.
But this is not just a throw-away point. Does Bush deviate from the teachings of the United Methodist Church? Yes he does, on some crucial political issues. Has he been reprimanded by leaders in his denomination? Yes, particularly on the issue of war in Iraq. And if you want to make this a question of who's the better Christian, then it's fair to ask why President Bush doesn't go to church. You heard me ? the man worships at Camp David and every so often wanders across Lafayette Park (although the park is pretty much impassable now what with all of the security construction going on) to attend services at St. John's Episcopal Church. But the man who has staked his domestic policy on the power of civil society and of good Christian individuals to change lives isn't an active member of a congregation ? the very kind of organization in which he claims to have so much faith.
Atrios
Edit: Links
Discuss.
Roger is right - those on the political Right calling for Kerry's excommunication are religious frauds and charlatans. They care nothing for the beliefs they profess to have, they only care about achieving and obtaining power. It's disgusting.
Email Peter Robinson and ask him why he isn't calling for the excommunication of Pataki, Ridge, Giuliani, and Ahnuld, as he is for Kerry.
[email protected]
You can send him to this handy website which gives us Tom Ridge's voting record on abortion when he was in Congress.
Atrios
*This is not meant to be a thread focused on Kerry and/or Abortion. That's not the main topic. I would like to discuss the amount of freedom that American Catholics are allowed in their acceptance of Rome
Thanks for the derail.
Instead of swerving this into the Northgate Call Center, can we have a grounded and sane discussion about American Catholicism re: Rome? I guess not. It MUST be made as poo-litical as possible.
Originally posted by Fran441
I'm Catholic and I don't go to Church any more because I can't find a church which hasn't been involved in the child sexual abuse cases (either having a priest which was an offender or having people cover it up), theft of donations from parishoners, etc.
It's funny how the Vatican doesn't have an issue with pedophiles giving communion and trying to 'spread the word of God' yet they have a problem with someone saying that women should have the right to choose if they want to have an abortion or not (while still being against the practice of abortion). Give me a break.
I am not bothered so much that some priests are sinners (maybe even many of them). It would be astounding if all priests were sinless. The bothersome point is how the church deals with this and other issues.