Should the Church be silent ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Madness. As no one ever answered the central point I'll state it again: a politician who is pro-choice is merely adopting a position that there should be no criminal laws against abortion in this country. He may personally believe that abortion is wrong or sinful but not believe that that position must be codified in the criminal law. And the same ...[text shortened]... on't be very many people taking communion in RC churches in the US if these rules are followed.

Damn that secret ballot

Originally posted by Coletti
Someone who had an abortion is no more in a 'state of grave sin' then someone who had committed adultery. I think the greater sin is taking an active pro-abortion political position. The person who had an abortion can ask for for ...[text shortened]... a 'state of grave sin.' The RCC is right to deny them communion.

Coletti, you did not read my post (this seems a chronic problem of yours).

As I am intimately familiar with the RC process of forgiveness, the purpose of my first
sentence was to set up the subsequent comparisons. Specifically, I was comparing people
who take 'Pro-Choice' stances with those who take 'Pro-War' chances. To use your terms,
both are unrepentent; both are taking stances which are anti-thetical to the Church.

Similarly, those who take 'Pro-Capital Punishment' or 'Anti-Welfare' stances are similarly
'Anti-Life,' as the former is demonstrably against Church teaching and the latter fails to
recognize their Christian duty to serve those in greater need. Yet I have never
heard of Communion being denied those politicians who are (e.g.) 'Pro-Death Penalty.'
How can the Church explain this?

In media attention, there is another circumstance which results in a ne admittantur:
those who have divorced and remarried.

Ivanhoe: Should candidates who are 'Pro-Divorce' politically be denied Communion, since
the permission of divorce results in all manner of 'grave sin?' Are Roman Catholic civil servants
obligated to testify to the unethicalness of divorce and strive to eliminate the procedure from
the areas which they represent?

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe

C'mon stompy, don't make a fool of yourself. It is not about the Pope's opinion. It's about the Church's teachings.

No ..its not at all about the church's teaching it's about the pope not knowing what kingdom he serves.
The church can teach anything it likes except that it has power to tell the faithful to enforce it's decrees on other people.
That is the core of the Church's attack on religious freedom.
Your garbage interpretation of the first amendment total destroys the meaning of it, allowing a deceitful church to force people, who have other beliefs, to live under it's monolithic religious laws.

To paraphrase a great American:
"Any church can withstand adversity, but if you want to test it's character, give it power" The RCC has shown it's lack of character throughout history ,enough already!
a paraphrase from a thief that stole himself:
"You are not in favor of religious freedom, merely by wanting religious freedom for yourself, but only when you are also against forcing your own religion on others" and that is where the RCC is lacking understanding

In conclusion I will leave you these seemingly forgotten words from long ago: " Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

Originally posted by KneverKnight
My choice isn't important to others; having a choice is.

Actually, your choice (and the reasons for it) are important - every couple in the situation I describe would have to answer the same question. I've already provided and explained my choice - if your choice is different, I'd like to know how you came to that decision.

On the second part of the question, how does the Church actually prevent people having a "choice"? And, I'd like facts here, not sound-bites.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Coletti, you did not read my post (this seems a chronic problem of yours).

As I am intimately familiar with the RC process of forgiveness, the purpose of my first
sentence was to set up the subsequent comparisons. Specifically, I was comparing people
who take 'Pro-Choice' stances with those who take 'Pro-War' chances. To use your terms,
both are ...[text shortened]... f divorce and strive to eliminate the procedure from
the areas which they represent?

Nemesio

Actually, the Church is not completely anti-War - it does allow for Just Wars. So, a person taking a pro-War position is not being anti-thetical to the Church per se.

Originally posted by Nemesio
According to Canon 915, the only people who are to be refused Holy Communion (ne admittantur)
are people who are in a 'state of grave sin.' While this would include people who have had an
abortion, I don't see how it could incl ...[text shortened]... is doing so
not for moral reasons, but political ones.

Nemesio

Canon 915 does not say that the only people to be refused the Eucharist are people in a state of grave sin.

Further, Canons 1369 and 1399 would, IMO, apply to politicians who assent to abortion laws.

And finally - let's get this straight. You cannot equate the gravity of the Church position on abortion with that of its position on war, capital punishment and social justice. The Church opposes the former in all instances, the latter is governed by a set of guidelines that have exceptions.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Canon 915 does not say that the [b]only people to be refused the Eucharist are people in a state of grave sin.

Further, Canons 1369 and 1399 would, IMO, apply to politicians who assent to abortion laws.

And finally - let's get this straight. You cannot equate the gravity of the Church position on abortion with that of its position on war, ...[text shortened]... the former in all instances, the latter is governed by a set of guidelines that have exceptions.[/b]

Not forcing non-catholics to follow RCC doctrine is a grave sin?
Not representing the Pope in Congress is grounds for punishment?
What you are saying would make any remaining Catholic office holders in violation of their oath of office and unfit for public service, in fact agents of a foreign government.
This is exactly what your new-found "friends" in the bible belt have said right along about Catholics, and it's quite apparent the only people that win gain from the short-sightedness of the RCC is the anti-Catholics.
You might win the battle, but in winning it you will lose the war, for to win it you have had to destroy religious freedom in the U.S. and the people that will run America are not friends of the Church.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Not forcing non-catholics to follow RCC doctrine is a grave sin?
Not representing the Pope in Congress is grounds for punishment?
What you are saying would make any remaining Catholic office holders in violation of their oath of office and unfit for public service, in fact agents of a foreign government.
This is exactly what your new ...[text shortened]... gious freedom in the U.S. and the people that will run America are not friends of the Church.

Err ... how did you get all that "Not forcing non-Catholics to follow RCC doctrine is a grave sin" business from my post? Or are you confusing me for someone else?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Coletti, you did not read my post (this seems a chronic problem of yours).

As I am intimately familiar with the RC process of forgiveness, the purpose of my first
sentence was to set up the subsequent comparisons. Specifically, I was comparing people
who take 'Pro-Choice' stances with those who take 'Pro-War' chances. To use your terms,
both are ...[text shortened]... f divorce and strive to eliminate the procedure from
the areas which they represent?

Nemesio

I should have added that I don't have any problem with the rest of your post - in principle that is. If the RCC believes the Pro-Abortion politicians should not receive Communion, they should be consistent about that regarding other positions people take that are in direct contradiction to RCC on matters of sin. I don't know if I agree with your list, but the principle is correct.

Does the RCC consider a murder in a 'graven state of sin?' I just want to be sure I understand their view of sin - since it is the RCC Communion we are speaking of.

Although it is bad to be the one to commit a sin, I think it is worse to be public supporter, condoner, encourager, or teacher of sin even if you do not personal commit the sin, or think it's not okay for you personally. For a Catholic to be pro-choice, requires them to contradict the RCC directly. I assume they teach that abortion is a sin for anyone - regardless of your religion or political position. Same for murder, adultery, etc. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Err ... how did you get all that "Not forcing non-Catholics to follow RCC doctrine is a grave sin" business from my post? Or are you confusing me for someone else?

Can. 1369 A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.
Can. 1399 Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws, the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished, and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired.

"Canon 915 does not say that the only people to be refused the Eucharist are people in a state of grave sin.

Further, Canons 1369 and 1399 would, IMO, apply to politicians who assent to abortion laws.

And finally - let's get this straight. You cannot equate the gravity of the Church position on abortion with that of its position on war, capital punishment and social justice. The Church opposes the former in all instances, the latter is governed by a set of guidelines that have exceptions."...you

That's how.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Can. 1369 A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails a ...[text shortened]... guidelines that have exceptions."...you

That's how.

Thanks for posting the actual canons and reproducing my post. But you're still not making any sense.

1. How does either canon say/imply that non-Catholics must be forced to follow Catholic doctrine?
2. How does either canon say/imply that Catholic Congressmen must represent the Pope in Congress?
3. What precisely do you mean by "doctrine"?

EDIT: Check out the Vatican II Declaration 'Dignitatis Humanae' when you have the time.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Thanks for posting the actual canons and reproducing my post. But you're still not making any sense.

1. How does either canon say/imply that non-Catholics must be forced to follow Catholic doctrine?
2. How does either canon say/imply that Catholic Congressmen must represent the Pope in Congress?
3. What precisely do you mean by "doctrine"?

How else can your post be read?
I really don't have a lot of time right now, but the implications made in your post are that 1&2 are part of 3

and now I'm off to the store

Originally posted by frogstomp
How else can your post be read?
I really don't have a lot of time right now, but the implications made in your post are that 1&2 are part of 3

and now I'm off to the store

Please re-read my post(s) when you have more time and then come back with a more considered response.

EDIT: And note that Dignitatis Humanae is also part of Catholic teaching.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Coletti, you did not read my post (this seems a chronic problem of yours).

As I am intimately familiar with the RC process of forgiveness, the purpose of my first
sentence was to set up the subsequent comparisons. Specifically, I was c ...[text shortened]... ate the procedure from
the areas which they represent?

Nemesio

Nemesio: "Should candidates who are 'Pro-Divorce' politically be denied Communion, since
the permission of divorce results in all manner of 'grave sin?' Are Roman Catholic civil servants
obligated to testify to the unethicalness of divorce and strive to eliminate the procedure from
the areas which they represent?"


Huu ..... is that an issue at the moment ? I am very confident you will find an answer yourself to this matter. You are knowledgable enough regarding these issues.