Kennedy: Barred from Communion

[Anguille]

I found an interesting story about a memo Cardinal Ratzinger circulated which attempts to distinguish between denying communion to a politician who supports choice and a voter who votes for that politician. Apparently, the politician who supports choice should be denied communion because s/he actively participates in effecting that policy whereas a voter who votes for that pro-choice politician is taking other issues into consideration that must outweigh the pro-choice position, thus that voter's vote is not sinful. (Here's the article on that memo when the Pope was a cardinal). I have not been successful in finding a release from His Holiness about this issue, but the memo when he was cardinal may give some insight into the rationale.

I like this Pope because I view him as scholarly and an intellectual, so I always find his encyclicals and other releases interesting to read. However, the denial of a politician's communion and not that of the voter as well, seems like very weak rationalization, IMO. Thus, I agree - bullshit, because of the weak rationalization to exempt the voters.

Thanks for the link. I read this in the article :


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]He said that in judging their own worthiness to receive Communion Catholics should recognize that abortion and euthanasia are grave sins, and that it is never permitted to cooperate in them in a formal way.[/FONT]

I wonder what the Catholic Church's stance would be on the sinfulness of abusing the power of public office to cater to a church based in a foreign country.

 

[Ravi]

I found an interesting story about a memo Cardinal Ratzinger circulated which attempts to distinguish between denying communion to a politician who supports choice and a voter who votes for that politician. Apparently, the politician who supports choice should be denied communion because s/he actively participates in effecting that policy whereas a voter who votes for that pro-choice politician is taking other issues into consideration that must outweigh the pro-choice position, thus that voter's vote is not sinful. (Here's the article on that memo when the Pope was a cardinal). I have not been successful in finding a release from His Holiness about this issue, but the memo when he was cardinal may give some insight into the rationale.

I like this Pope because I view him as scholarly and an intellectual, so I always find his encyclicals and other releases interesting to read. However, the denial of a politician's communion and not that of the voter as well, seems like very weak rationalization, IMO. Thus, I agree - bullshit, because of the weak rationalization to exempt the voters.

Thanks for the link. I read this in the article :


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]He said that in judging their own worthiness to receive Communion Catholics should recognize that abortion and euthanasia are grave sins, and that it is never permitted to cooperate in them in a formal way.[/FONT]

I wonder what the Catholic Church's stance would be on the sinfulness of abusing the power of public office to cater to a church based in a foreign country.

That's silly, no offense.

Better to ask if the Bishop has ever had knowledge of and kept his mouth shut about pedophile priests.

 

[Valerie]

I found an interesting story about a memo Cardinal Ratzinger circulated which attempts to distinguish between denying communion to a politician who supports choice and a voter who votes for that politician. Apparently, the politician who supports choice should be denied communion because s/he actively participates in effecting that policy whereas a voter who votes for that pro-choice politician is taking other issues into consideration that must outweigh the pro-choice position, thus that voter's vote is not sinful. (Here's the article on that memo when the Pope was a cardinal). I have not been successful in finding a release from His Holiness about this issue, but the memo when he was cardinal may give some insight into the rationale.

I like this Pope because I view him as scholarly and an intellectual, so I always find his encyclicals and other releases interesting to read. However, the denial of a politician's communion and not that of the voter as well, seems like very weak rationalization, IMO. Thus, I agree - bullshit, because of the weak rationalization to exempt the voters.

Thanks for the link. I read this in the article :


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]He said that in judging their own worthiness to receive Communion Catholics should recognize that abortion and euthanasia are grave sins, and that it is never permitted to cooperate in them in a formal way.[/FONT]

I wonder what the Catholic Church's stance would be on the sinfulness of abusing the power of public office to cater to a church based in a foreign country.

Or how about asking the Pope how does he reconcile the way the Catholic Church cooperated in a formal way with the cover-up of pedophile priests?

 

[Valerie]

I found an interesting story about a memo Cardinal Ratzinger circulated which attempts to distinguish between denying communion to a politician who supports choice and a voter who votes for that politician. Apparently, the politician who supports choice should be denied communion because s/he actively participates in effecting that policy whereas a voter who votes for that pro-choice politician is taking other issues into consideration that must outweigh the pro-choice position, thus that voter's vote is not sinful. (Here's the article on that memo when the Pope was a cardinal). I have not been successful in finding a release from His Holiness about this issue, but the memo when he was cardinal may give some insight into the rationale.

I like this Pope because I view him as scholarly and an intellectual, so I always find his encyclicals and other releases interesting to read. However, the denial of a politician's communion and not that of the voter as well, seems like very weak rationalization, IMO. Thus, I agree - bullshit, because of the weak rationalization to exempt the voters.

Thanks for the link. I read this in the article :


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]He said that in judging their own worthiness to receive Communion Catholics should recognize that abortion and euthanasia are grave sins, and that it is never permitted to cooperate in them in a formal way.[/FONT]

I wonder what the Catholic Church's stance would be on the sinfulness of abusing the power of public office to cater to a church based in a foreign country.

That's silly, no offense.

Better to ask if the Bishop has ever had knowledge of and kept his mouth shut about pedophile priests.

My thought exactly!

 

[Anguille]

Read the fucking letter from the Bishop, dumbass.

It's all there.

Or would you like me to send a copy of Hooked on Phonics to you for the holidays?

Dumbass.

Clearly you didn't read the bishop's letter yourself. He gives no instructions on how Kennedy is supposed to refrain from taking communion without it being apparent to everyone in church that he is not taking communion.

He put Kennedy in a Catch 22 position.

I think he's weasel. Good for Kennedy for bringing the whole thing to light.

 

[Valerie]

Bullshit.

The Bishop counseled Kennedy PRIVATELY and CONFIDENTIALLY-- THREE (3) YEARS AGO.

Kennedy chose recently to go public with this Pastoral Counseling.

IT is KENNEDY who has a political angle with this.. NOT the Bishop.

Read the WHOLE FUCKING THREAD.......I posted the Bishop's response/letter to Kennedy pages and pages ago.

You're absolutely ignorant and full of shit.

You fail to point out how Kennedy was supposed to comply with the bishop's request and yet not do so publicly.

Read the {fucking} letter from the Bishop, {dumbass.}

It's all there.

{Or would you like me to send a copy of Hooked on Phonics to you for the holidays?

Dumbass.}

OR.......

Why don't you just paste - right here - the part of the Pope's letter that answers to the point Anguille is making?


How was Patrick supposed to keep the public act of not going to communion private?

 

[Anguille]

I found an interesting story about a memo Cardinal Ratzinger circulated which attempts to distinguish between denying communion to a politician who supports choice and a voter who votes for that politician. Apparently, the politician who supports choice should be denied communion because s/he actively participates in effecting that policy whereas a voter who votes for that pro-choice politician is taking other issues into consideration that must outweigh the pro-choice position, thus that voter's vote is not sinful. (Here's the article on that memo when the Pope was a cardinal). I have not been successful in finding a release from His Holiness about this issue, but the memo when he was cardinal may give some insight into the rationale.

I like this Pope because I view him as scholarly and an intellectual, so I always find his encyclicals and other releases interesting to read. However, the denial of a politician's communion and not that of the voter as well, seems like very weak rationalization, IMO. Thus, I agree - bullshit, because of the weak rationalization to exempt the voters.

Thanks for the link. I read this in the article :


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]He said that in judging their own worthiness to receive Communion Catholics should recognize that abortion and euthanasia are grave sins, and that it is never permitted to cooperate in them in a formal way.[/FONT]

I wonder what the Catholic Church's stance would be on the sinfulness of abusing the power of public office to cater to a church based in a foreign country.

That's silly, no offense.

Better to ask if the Bishop has ever had knowledge of and kept his mouth shut about pedophile priests.

You're right. It was silly of me to think the Catholic Church might ever act ethically.

 

[Anguille]

I found an interesting story about a memo Cardinal Ratzinger circulated which attempts to distinguish between denying communion to a politician who supports choice and a voter who votes for that politician. Apparently, the politician who supports choice should be denied communion because s/he actively participates in effecting that policy whereas a voter who votes for that pro-choice politician is taking other issues into consideration that must outweigh the pro-choice position, thus that voter's vote is not sinful. (Here's the article on that memo when the Pope was a cardinal). I have not been successful in finding a release from His Holiness about this issue, but the memo when he was cardinal may give some insight into the rationale.

I like this Pope because I view him as scholarly and an intellectual, so I always find his encyclicals and other releases interesting to read. However, the denial of a politician's communion and not that of the voter as well, seems like very weak rationalization, IMO. Thus, I agree - bullshit, because of the weak rationalization to exempt the voters.

Thanks for the link. I read this in the article :


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]He said that in judging their own worthiness to receive Communion Catholics should recognize that abortion and euthanasia are grave sins, and that it is never permitted to cooperate in them in a formal way.[/FONT]

I wonder what the Catholic Church's stance would be on the sinfulness of abusing the power of public office to cater to a church based in a foreign country.

Or how about asking the Pope how does he reconcile the way the Catholic Church cooperated in a formal way with the cover-up of pedophile priests?

I wonder if Cardinal Bernard Law, whisked off to the safety of the Vatican during the child abuse investigations in the Massachusetts churches, is allowed to take communion?

 

[amrchaos]

The Catholic Church has the right to deny communion to anyone that they feel is working against the Church.

Support of abortion is considered undermining the Church!! Obtain your blessings somewhere else, damn Heretics!

 

[Si modo]

The Catholic Church has the right to deny communion to anyone that they feel is working against the Church.

Support of abortion is considered undermining the Church!! Obtain your blessings somewhere else, damn Heretics!

And that is likely the end result. I can't think this likely result is what the Church wants.

 

[Anguille]

The Catholic Church has the right to deny communion to anyone that they feel is working against the Church.

Support of abortion is considered undermining the Church!! Obtain your blessings somewhere else, damn Heretics!

Support of choice is not the same as support of abortion.

But I suppose the Catholic Church is anti-freedom too.

 

[Anguille]

Support of abortion is considered undermining the Church!! Obtain your blessings somewhere else, damn Heretics!

And that is likely the end result.

Exactly! lol!

 

[Anguille]

I found an interesting story about a memo Cardinal Ratzinger circulated which attempts to distinguish between denying communion to a politician who supports choice and a voter who votes for that politician. Apparently, the politician who supports choice should be denied communion because s/he actively participates in effecting that policy whereas a voter who votes for that pro-choice politician is taking other issues into consideration that must outweigh the pro-choice position, thus that voter's vote is not sinful. (Here's the article on that memo when the Pope was a cardinal). I have not been successful in finding a release from His Holiness about this issue, but the memo when he was cardinal may give some insight into the rationale.

I like this Pope because I view him as scholarly and an intellectual, so I always find his encyclicals and other releases interesting to read. However, the denial of a politician's communion and not that of the voter as well, seems like very weak rationalization, IMO. Thus, I agree - bullshit, because of the weak rationalization to exempt the voters.

Agreed. From the article:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.

"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons," he said.

In other words, if a Catholic thinks a candidate's positions on other issues outweigh the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered sinful.

In other words, abortion is okay in some cases, IE when the voter wants results on some other issue, throw the baby under the bus.

They are being hypocritical. I'm sure they are more concerned with losing followers than with doing what they supposedly think is right.
[/FONT]

 

[Valerie]

I heard a Franciscan Priest say that barring sinners from communion seems to be the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the Lord taught us....that those sinners need the Grace of the Sacraments MORE than the average abiding Catholic and it seemed wrong to bar sinners, because sinners ARE WHO CHRIST DIED FOR, not for all the "perfect" people.

I happen to agree with him...his name is Father Groechel, and is on EWTN.

Me too...And I agree with Anguille, you'd make a great Pope!

 

[Si modo]

I found an interesting story about a memo Cardinal Ratzinger circulated which attempts to distinguish between denying communion to a politician who supports choice and a voter who votes for that politician. Apparently, the politician who supports choice should be denied communion because s/he actively participates in effecting that policy whereas a voter who votes for that pro-choice politician is taking other issues into consideration that must outweigh the pro-choice position, thus that voter's vote is not sinful. (Here's the article on that memo when the Pope was a cardinal). I have not been successful in finding a release from His Holiness about this issue, but the memo when he was cardinal may give some insight into the rationale.

I like this Pope because I view him as scholarly and an intellectual, so I always find his encyclicals and other releases interesting to read. However, the denial of a politician's communion and not that of the voter as well, seems like very weak rationalization, IMO. Thus, I agree - bullshit, because of the weak rationalization to exempt the voters.

Agreed. From the article:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.

"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons," he said.

In other words, if a Catholic thinks a candidate's positions on other issues outweigh the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered sinful.

In other words, abortion is okay in some cases, IE when the voter wants results on some other issue, throw the baby under the bus.

They are being hypocritical. I'm sure they are more concerned with losing followers than with doing what they supposedly think is right.
[/FONT]

Bingo. He attempts this rationalization because it is needed to keep the voting parishioners walking through the doors every Sunday, while still taking a pretty public stance by going after the politician. I see little validity to that rationalization.

 

[Anguille]

Thanks again, SiModo, for that link, It further strengthens my opinion that the Catholic Church is not so much concerned about the "sinfullness" of abortion as they are concerned with maintaining control of women's bodies.

 

[Anguille]

I found an interesting story about a memo Cardinal Ratzinger circulated which attempts to distinguish between denying communion to a politician who supports choice and a voter who votes for that politician. Apparently, the politician who supports choice should be denied communion because s/he actively participates in effecting that policy whereas a voter who votes for that pro-choice politician is taking other issues into consideration that must outweigh the pro-choice position, thus that voter's vote is not sinful. (Here's the article on that memo when the Pope was a cardinal). I have not been successful in finding a release from His Holiness about this issue, but the memo when he was cardinal may give some insight into the rationale.

I like this Pope because I view him as scholarly and an intellectual, so I always find his encyclicals and other releases interesting to read. However, the denial of a politician's communion and not that of the voter as well, seems like very weak rationalization, IMO. Thus, I agree - bullshit, because of the weak rationalization to exempt the voters.

Agreed. From the article:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.

"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons," he said.

In other words, if a Catholic thinks a candidate's positions on other issues outweigh the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered sinful.

In other words, abortion is okay in some cases, IE when the voter wants results on some other issue, throw the baby under the bus.

They are being hypocritical. I'm sure they are more concerned with losing followers than with doing what they supposedly think is right.
[/FONT]

Bingo. He attempts this rationalization because it is needed to keep the voting parishioners walking through the doors every Sunday, while still taking a pretty public stance by going after the politician. I see little validity to that rationalization.

Also by keeping the parishioners coming to mass they can influence them not to vote for politicians they can't control.

 

[Si modo]

Thanks again, SiModo, for that link, It further strengthens my opinion that the Catholic Church is not so much concerned about the "sinfullness" of abortion as they are concerned with maintaining control of women's bodies.

Personally, I think the Church is actually concerned with that sinfulness (with which I disagree based on science, but the Church is often the last to get on board in that area). But, I am not sure the Church is going to gain any followers with these denials. I am not sure if they will lose any, but I don't see much gain happening from it.

 

[del]

You fail to point out how Kennedy was supposed to comply with the bishop's request and yet not do so publicly.

Read the {fucking} letter from the Bishop, {dumbass.}

It's all there.

{Or would you like me to send a copy of Hooked on Phonics to you for the holidays?

Dumbass.}

OR.......

Why don't you just paste - right here - the part of the Pope's letter that answers to the point Anguille is making?


How was Patrick supposed to keep the public act of not going to communion private?

nobody knew about it until he opened his yap for whatever bizarre, drug abuse fuelled reason he has.

how is NOT doing something a public act? do you really think that there's someone checking up on this dipshit's church attendance and how often he takes communion?

really? c'mon.

 

[Ravi]

um...if I were in church every Sunday with Kennedy I'd notice him sitting out communion...and so would everyone else.