Video: Hannity argues with priest over birth control
posted at 10:59 am on March 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Thanks for this to Robert Stacy McCain, who tells me the clip’s picking up steam in the Catholic blogosphere. For its entertainment value, presumably: it’s as pointless debating this issue as it is abortion or evolution, but the thought of Fox’s resident hammer going after a man in a white collar is irresistible. McCain is compiling reactions at the WashTimes website.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I had a chuckle at the title of McCain’s thread:
“Is Hannity a Heretic?”
haha
Lehosh on March 15, 2007 at 11:17 AM
“Do you know anything about me?”
-Famous (paraphrased) words of many guests to Hannity..
Reaps on March 15, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Wow!
CharlestonCritic on March 15, 2007 at 11:22 AM
I wish Hannity would have let him finish a sentence.
archon2001 on March 15, 2007 at 11:28 AM
I’ve always found Hannity & Colmes difficult to watch. Hannity is strident, nakedly agenda-driven, and many times ill-informed. Colmes is an ignorant rube who incredibly believes any old meme peddled by the party.
It’s like they lifted a couple of commenters from a second rate blog and put them on TV.
Lehosh on March 15, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Wow, he’d deny him Communion, because he has one different belief than him? Doesn’t sound very Christian. Did Jesus deny prostitutes the ability to listen to him preaching the word of the Lord? Don’t think so.
amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Okay, AllahPundit, watch me light up this thread.
It was SO EASY for the priest threaten Sean and tell him that he would deny him the Eucharist.
The REAL problem is that it is NOT so easy for the rest of us to DENY all Catholic priests access to young children. And after all, WE SHOULD, since we have FAR MORE EVIDENCE that there is a problem WITH THAT, than there is evidence that God has a problem with birth control.
Go ahead. Anyone want to take me on with this one?
CyberCipher on March 15, 2007 at 11:40 AM
I was surprised the Priest would deny communion.
infidel on March 15, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Man, Sean Hannity is such a scuzzy little worm. Did he really just say “Judge not lest ye be judged, Reverend?”
Enrique on March 15, 2007 at 11:47 AM
CyberCipher -
What I would RATHER do, is make fun your ANNOYING commenting STYLE. Let me guess, BITTER ex-Catholic? CATHOLIC in name ONLY? CLUELESS as to what the Church ACTUALLY teaches about the SANCTITY of life?
BTW – Anybody, Clergy, laity, whatever, found to be guilty of child abuse should be dealt with harshly. I know, obvious comment, but had to say it.
Sacwannabe on March 15, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Dammit…I hoped this day would never come.
I can’t stand Hannity, I think he’s dumber than a box of rocks on a smart day, and I can’t stand the ‘rotten crap Democrats have said’ speech he gives night after night after night. The ridiculous Reagan worship (he was a great Prez, the worship is too much)…but I’m gonna go on to defend him here. This is gonna hurt.
He’s right that we (I’m Catholic) can’t impose laws against contraceptives, because the US isn’t under the Pope’s reign. If we ruled the country and could vote that way, sure. It would be obnoxious, but well within our right with the whole voting thing we do here. That said, many other religions and non religious are allowed contraceptives within their own doctrine, and its their choice. I’d rather not start another 30 Years War(yes I’m joking about the 30 yrs. war, HA readers seem to need the reminder).
Hannity comes off as his typically dunderheaded self in his weaksauce “judge lest and casting stones” argument, and the sex scandal dodge, but managed to stumble his way to the right argument eventually, that he doesn’t believe in it personally, but if others wanna use it, they have their own doctrine, and he isn’t going to order a diktat against it.
That said, I wanna know if he’d deny communion to The Swimmer. Sounds like he’d probably deny a third of US Catholics communion if he’s honest. I’d probably be out.
Enrique, you’re wrong, he’s not a scuzzy little worm. He’s a blockhead and a dope.
Bad Candy on March 15, 2007 at 11:57 AM
If Hannity claims to be Catholic, then he can’t pick and choose like a moral relativist which beliefs he is going to believe in and which truths he is going to reject. The opposition to birth control has been taught since the apostolic times.
With good reason too. Look where the Anglican church, like wimps they are, has ended up after it ended its opposition to birth control in the 1930s.
Muslims don’t believe in birth control. Maybe Hannity can join them. Eventually his descendents will, with attitudes like his.
januarius on March 15, 2007 at 11:59 AM
One more thing: At least Fox consistently has real priests–not liberal pretenders–stating Catholic teaching. The MSM almost always has prominent dissidents who claim they are Catholics while they misrepresent Catholic doctrine.
januarius on March 15, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Woohoo! We got a donnybrook on our hands. And I was afraid that all that I was going to hear was the crickets chirping.
Any why, yes, my commenting style IS annoying. It may be my only redeeming quality.
Of course, I am still WAY BETTER OFF than those PEDOFILES that call themselves priests. Jesus said that it would be better to have a large mill-stone tied around their necks and for them to be thrown into the sea. HE is the authority that I recognize. Not some church official that has an agenda that has NOTHING to do with God.
C’mon. Give me your best shot!
CyberCipher on March 15, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Ok, sorry for this, being a Methodist I may not understand Catholics. Is it required that you believe everything your Preist tells you? Are you not allowed to attempt to read and/or interpret the Bible as God’s Word for yourself?
If you were allowed that right to read and understand the Bible yourself, you might come to a disagreement honestly with a Priest… but from what I read here, Catholics don’t get to do that?
Is that really the process?
gekkobear on March 15, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Er. Oops (SIC) It’s pedophile. Mo matter. Let the war continue.
CyberCipher on March 15, 2007 at 12:04 PM
No, Hannity should not receive the body of Christ while in a sinful state. Period. BTW, I had nothing to do with the sex scandal, and I am having to help pay for it. ALL sex abusers should be locked up and those who hide them should be held accountable. and If they are in a position of authority, eg, priest, bishop they should be held to a even higher standard
opiemuyo on March 15, 2007 at 12:06 PM
You sound like a real bigot. There are far more pedophile teachers than there are priests and almost every pedophile was a liberal, who simply claimed to be Catholic while rejecting most of its teachings. The pedophile problem was worst in liberal dioceses, run by liberal bishops.
You claim to follow Christ’s teachings. Of course, you probably believe the Bible. But which authority decided which books were to be in the Canon of the New Testament? Why not the Gospel of James, Thomas, Judas, etc.?
Catholics believe in sacred tradition, the Bible, and objective truth. You believe in your own subjective opinions and are a moral relativist.
januarius on March 15, 2007 at 12:09 PM
To quote Sean Hannity, “Do you know ANYTHING about me?”
The answer is no. Not a thing. YOU are the one that is speaking from ignorance. Not me. But it didn’t stop you from hurling wild accusations at me, did it? You are speculating. Why don’t you just declare me a witch, and have me burned at the stake?
CyberCipher on March 15, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Ok, sorry for this, being a Methodist I may not understand Catholics. Is it required that you believe everything your Preist tells you? Are you not allowed to attempt to read and/or interpret the Bible as God’s Word for yourself?
We believe in objective truth as interpreted by the Magisterium in Rome. Christ granted the keys to Peter, the first Pope. We don’t believe the subjective whims of priests but all Catholics are to believe the absolute morals and doctrinal teaching as handed down in sacred tradition and holy scripture. The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. It dates back to the apostles.
As a Methodist, your beliefs date back to Martin Luther and John Calvin. Of course, they were right and the Church was wrong for 1500 years. As Michelle Malkin might say, that is “snortworthy.”
januarius on March 15, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Did you just call Hannity a prostitute? (HA! I kid!)
ReubenJCogburn on March 15, 2007 at 12:15 PM
C’mon Cypher, its a dodge. I guess you can argue its a plank in the eye to Hannity’s splinter, that they need to get their house in order before ragging on Hannity, but still, argue the problem at hand. And that is, where does the line end between being being a Catholic and a US Citizen, and how much can or should you reflect Catholic ideology in your arguments.
A priest has the luxury to argue pure theology because there’s seperation of church and state, and doesn’t have to acknowledge the Non-Catholics of the country in his argument, because he has no function on a state level, so he suffers no direct consequence or accountability for his arguments. Somehow Hannity wrapped his feeble brain around the idea that somewhere there has to be accountability and consequence on a state level, namely, responsibility to protect individual rights.
Bad Candy on March 15, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Ok, so you are an Evangelical Christian with an Anti-Catholic agenda… That’s cool, So I’ll just cut to the chase and say I know all your talking points are we aren’t gonna agree so, have a great day. :^)
Sacwannabe on March 15, 2007 at 12:17 PM
The above was supposed to be in block quotes in my post.
januarius on March 15, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Good Lord, I didn’t know that one has to earn communion for good behavior. I thought communion was the result of self-reflection and the realization that one is a sinful being whose life has been redeemed by Another’s perfect life and death. I guess I’m not a Catholic either, and never will be. Thank God for that.
Drum on March 15, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Amen Januarius, I am proud to call you a Catholic…
Sacwannabe on March 15, 2007 at 12:20 PM
If I have accomplished nothing else, I now have all of you talking about this problem out in the open. For a very long time, Catholics wouldn’t even talk about it. Or acknowledge that the problem exists.
CyberCipher on March 15, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Will at least one of you bother to research Catholic teaching before popping off?? Your ignorance is killin me…
Sacwannabe on March 15, 2007 at 12:22 PM
I am continuously amazed at the strength of anti-Catholic comments that are consistently seen on this blog. I know that there’s not much that Allah, Michelle, Bryan, or others can do about it except to urge people to get their heads out of their asses, but I’d have hoped that people would be a little more RESPECTFUL of different religious beliefs. Are ALL of you bigots?
Your mocking display of ignorance and failure to be charitable isn’t very Christian either. For your knowledge, it is a mortal sin to knowingly receive the Eucharist in a state of sin or heresy. This is the same thing with the debate over giving communion to abortionist politicians. The Priest is protecting Hannity from mortal sin, and asking him to reconsider his position with the Magesterial teaching of the Church. Hannity has no right to receive the Eucharist, since doing so in his state would engander his soul.
So smearing all priests as pedophiles, and crowing about how great you are, and saying that Priests have nothing to do with God, isn’t a sin? I guess you’re just another bigot.
Stop trading in anti-Catholic sterotypes. Catholics read the Bible all the time. Do people honestly believe that we don’t? That you believe this crap, or are willing to use it in an argument, shows that you have no understanding or respect of Catholic beliefs. A person calls himself a Catholic if he believes in the doctrines of the Church, and the authority of the Tradition and Magesterium. There are over 35,000 Protestant Churches to choose from if someone thinks they’ve discovered the true meaning of something.
Sydney Carton on March 15, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Yes, you are a real hero CyberCipher…
Sacwannabe on March 15, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Amen Sydney, I am proud to call you a Catholic…
Sacwannabe on March 15, 2007 at 12:26 PM
>As a Methodist, your beliefs date back to Martin Luther and John Calvin. Of course, they were right and the Church was wrong for 1500 years.
Snortworthy or not, they wereright about reminding Christians that the Gospel — which is the foundation of all Christianity — is not about us and our behaviorbut about the perfect and completed work of Christ on our behalf. That is, if you think good behavior or the perfect keeping of the Magisterium’s interpretation is gonna gain us brownie points with the Lord, then you’ve missed it. Thankfully, theological blindness is also forgiven, though the fallout is usually troublesome.
Drum on March 15, 2007 at 12:27 PM
That is very ignorant of you if you don’t know what communion is. No wonder liberals and Muslims are making such strides if you don’t know the basic teachings of the organization–the Catholic Church–that influenced so heavily Western civilization.
You don’t have to be Catholic but you should at least–in order to be an educated person–know what Catholic beliefs are. Europe’s heritage is Catholic.
Catholics believe in the transsubstantian, that the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity at the consecration by the priest. For those who are sola scriptura, it is right there in the Bible. It is one of the seven sacramentsa and provides holy grace. It is not a “reward for good behavior.” You sound like you have had too many self-esteem classes in public schools.
januarius on March 15, 2007 at 12:28 PM
I like your post CyberCipher…
Having fun Allah?
brtex on March 15, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Oh, thanks for pointing this out! No one ever knew of the problem with homosexual priests until now! No one ever considered that seminaries were infected with a “lavendar mafia” at all. Nope! No books, Catholic blogs, or Catholic groups like the Knights of Columbus knew or talked about it. And Pope JP2 didn’t call all 12 American Cardinals to Rome in 2002 to discuss it either! And Pope Benedict didn’t issue a document in 2005 discussing the problems of homosexual priests! Nope! None of that happened! Thanks to you, are eyes are now open.
Idiot.
Sydney Carton on March 15, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Let’s be civil, folks. I don’t want it turning into Belfast in here.
Allahpundit on March 15, 2007 at 12:30 PM
I recently went through Catholic Pre-Cana (marriage preparation). They pitched the party line on birth control, and I have to say, it wasn’t as crazy as I thought it would sound. Its less about “Every Sperm is Sacred” and more about having faith in God and showing a little restraint. They hyped the successfulness of NFP(natural family planning) a bit, but I got the idea.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 15, 2007 at 12:30 PM
You know, I don’t understand why all of you are beating up on Hannity. As a Catholic myself, I agree with him 100%. The church’s position on contraception is not a God-made truth, but another man made bureaucratic policy aimed at increasing/maintaining their power base. What the church is basically saying to young people like myself is either don’t ever get married and have sex or be prepared to forgo every career goal you ever had and have more children than you can reasonably support or care for. It’s just straight up bass-ackwards.
Look at all the damage the church has done in Latin America and all over the third world with these reckless policies. Why do you think the church is so pro-illegal-immigration? Money and power.
I am pro life and against abortion. But preventing conception is completely different than killing a baby that has already been conceived. And that other “natural method” that Hannity mentioned, everyone knows it doesn’t work. Why else would the church actually endorse it?
John on March 15, 2007 at 12:33 PM
That is a complete misrepresenatation of what I said. CLEARLY, not all priests are pedophiles. Are you going to deny that some pedophiles are priests? If the secular people (like AllahPundit) weren’t so polite, they could point out that cities/townships/neighborhoods and other governmental units of community receive notification
when a pedophile is in their midst. Their are laws on the books. And yet, many Christians can’t even bring themselves to talk about the problem. No wonder the atheists laugh at us. And we frequently have NO IDEA. Are you saying that it is NOT a problem.
Thanks. I needed that. Don’t be surprised if I sometime return the favor. We all need friends to bolster our humility (like that) from time-to-time.
CyberCipher on March 15, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Let me also say this: I understand that to many Protestants, Catholic beliefs may seem unclear or subject to sterotypes from their upbringing. I urge all who are respectfully curious about different beliefs to read blogs like Amy Wellborn’s Open Book, Mark Shea’s blog Catholic and Enjoying It, Jimmy Akin’s blog, Roman Catholig Blog, or others.
There’s also the Catholic Encyclopedia, written in 1911 so it’s not entirely up to date, but available online here.
I’ll try to respond to sincere, respectful questions also. But I hope that everyone will be able to spot and ignore or shun people who trade in sterotypes or bigotry.
Sydney Carton on March 15, 2007 at 12:35 PM
>They hyped the successfulness of NFP (natural family planning) a bit, but I got the idea.
Well, that what this is all about. Natural Vacation to Hawaii Planning is still about money control, no? The Catholic Church piles on burdens that are simply too heavy to carry.
Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity breeds atheists and fundamentalist Catholicism breeds hypocrites or heretics, because both pile on morals and rules that are unbearable. I think Jesus was about something else altogether.
Drum on March 15, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Good grief. My spelling is atrocious. That’s what happens when I try to type too fast. My apologies.
CyberCipher on March 15, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Cipher, you ignorant slut.
Bad Candy on March 15, 2007 at 12:37 PM
You know, I don’t understand why all of you are beating up on Hannity. As a Catholic myself, I agree with him 100%.
You have been way too influenced by liberals. If you are really Catholic, then go learn your heritage, which is Europe’s heritage. But don’t call yourself Catholic if you don’t agree with the Church’s teachings and think it is a force for evil. Please do us all orthodox Catholics a favor and find a church that will conform to your personal, subjective beliefs.
januarius on March 15, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Allah,
Sorry for contributing to the rising heat here. I’ve noticed that there seems to be a problem with Catholicism amongst some of the commentors here. I’m willing to tone it down and answer all sincere questions respectfully. But I’d hope that the bigots would do us all a favor and leave.
Sydney Carton on March 15, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Allah, we Just need Captain Planet!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esUzwTJE3iI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ka9uitYDa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCMHglmrlaQ
Heh. Who can resist a Captain Planet joke?
Bad Candy on March 15, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Cipher, you ignorant slut.
Bad Candy on March 15, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Thanks. But that is the abbreviated version. I was always more fond of “you hagged-out, used-up, ignorant, misguided slut.” Try that next time. I’ll laugh out loud, instead of just smirking.
Why do you think that I am a bigot? All I have done is point to the obvious. It is clear to me that you are wounded by this. It is not my intention to rub salt in your wound, but only to point out that it doesn’t help any of us if we don’t talk about this stuff. Go back and read my first comment. I fully EXPECTED the abuse that I am now receiving. It is WORTH it, if I can get people to talk about this CONSTRUCTIVELY. But if all you are going to do is hurl names at me — like bigot (or heretic), then we have already lost. Not just me. But you and yours, as well.
CyberCipher on March 15, 2007 at 12:44 PM
You are a rude lout, CyberCipher, and a fair bit more self-important than your insight warrants.
To help you understand the feeble intellectual level of your arguments, perhaps an analogy: Ever been asked by a self-congratulating atheist, that proverbial stumper: “How can a just God allow evil?” A moronic question that shows complete willful ignorance of 2000 years of Christian deliberation, you say? Yes, well…
Here [pdf] is a report examining sexual abuse in public schools. A range of between 4 and 13 percent of students physically molested by teachers, with estimates as high as 70% of students approached “inappropriately” (the majority of which, admittedly, is probably PC crap– but can at least serve to normalize the comparison.)
Your vitriolic hatred of Catholics is not so much disturbing, as it is facile, and… boring. Let’s argue about something fun, like the filioque.
a4g on March 15, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Sydney Carton on March 15, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I wish I had said that, instead.
a4g on March 15, 2007 at 12:52 PM
CyberCipher: “Why do you think that I am a bigot? All I have done is point to the obvious.”
Dude,
You said that we should deny “all Catholic Priests” (notice the “all”) access to young children, as if they were all pedophiles. Then you said you’re better than “those PEDOFILES that call themselves priests” (implying that all priests are pedophiles). You also said that the priest’s statement on contraception was an “agenda” that had “NOTHING” to do with God, implying that our faith is a sham. Then you said that Catholics didn’t acknowledge the problem of homosexual priests or talk about it, which if you were paying attention you’d realize was complete B.S.
And now you claim you want to talk about this “CONSTRUCTIVELY”? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Why don’t you go search the archives of those Catholic blogs I posted and read about things you obviously know nothing about. Once you’re better informed, we’ll talk.
Sydney Carton on March 15, 2007 at 12:53 PM
You are right is some aspects and totally off base in others. Yes, being a Catholic means having high standards? How high? Well, how’s sainthood sound? Being the perfect Catholic means someday getting to be in a stained glass window. Think Mother Teresa.
But you know what, I’m no Mother Teresa. 98% of all Catholics aren’t Mother Teresa. Does that mean we shouldn’t all try to be Mother Teresa? For me, being Catholic means trying to be the best Catholic I can, and hoping God forgives me for not opening an orphanage in Calcutta. Frankly, I’m OK with this, and I like to think God is too.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 15, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Well thank you Sydney, I don’t undertand Catholic beliefs, I make that clear in my post, and so I ask questions.
Then you call me a bigot for asking. Which certainly shows what sort of debate you’re looking for, and promoting.
Then you claim I should leave the debate and the message board for my bigotry (rather than for self-proclaimed ignorance, I guess my ignorance is bigotry now…).
Apparently there are people that agree with you (good people), people that disagree (bigots) and people that are asking questions to learn the positions (also bigots). You’d like all the “bigots” to leave… leaving just those who already understand and agree with you.
Good to have that clear, where’d you learn to phrase an argument like that? Some sort of echo chamber perhaps?
gekkobear on March 15, 2007 at 12:56 PM
gekkobear,
It’s one thing to ask questions if you’re really ignorant, but my “crap detector” starting flashing red when I saw your comment about how Catholics supposedly aren’t allowed to read the Bible. I mean, COME ON. If that’s not a hurtful sterotype, I don’t know what is. I thought that a reasonably informed adult should know that Catholics read the Bible, and that only a person who is deliberately trying to be hurtful would say something like that.
If you were truly misinformed on that point, however, I aplogize for calling you a bigot. As I said to Allah, I’ll tone it down.
To answer your question, YES, Catholics read the Bible.
Sydney Carton on March 15, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Cipher. If you were Catholic, you’d get it. The Hierarchy operates on its own, and the more powerful, the more detached from reality they are, lot like politicians. It happens on the protestant/evangelical side, too, its just that catholics have the disadvantage of being a singular church, where others can go, ‘hey, it ain’t us’, its those heretical Presbyterians, so it amplifies the scandal, because everyone gets hit.
And it has been discussed heavily, sorry if we didn’t set up an audience for you, highness.
Another thing I just thought of is the Catholic hierarchical timeline. The Catholic church historically tends to think of things in terms of Centuries and tends to look things in long term(long term by US standards), not in minute long soundbites like in the states, so that is likely part of it. Lets not forget the media’s desire to destroy the church as well, just because there’s no reports of whats getting done, doesn’t mean it isn’t getting dealt with.
So have a little perspective. I shouldn’t be responding to your trolling, but meh. Whatever, I’mma go have lunch.
Bad Candy on March 15, 2007 at 1:05 PM
I never said that I violated the church’s teaching on contraception, (which I haven’t) only that I disagree with it. It’s important to ask questions and challenge the status quo when the status quo is visibly flawed. Years ago before safety became such a big issue in the work place, a lot more people got seriously injured or even killed on the job than they do today. Same concept. Doing things a certain way for no other reason than, “That’s how it’s always been done” is stupid, dangerous and costly. Complacency and blind obedience are major liabilities in life and it is no different in the bedroom. The modern reality is that having children too soon (or too many at all) is the quickest, most effective way to put your career on ice and send your financial security into a tailspin. This is not 1400, or even 1940 anymore. Nobody lives in the same neighborhood or works for the the same company all their like like people used to. Flexibility is everything.
The pope is not infallible and the church is not always right about everything.
Remember Copernicus?
Honestly, I still do beleive in the Eucharist, the other sacraments, and the teachings that Christ set out for us. which is why I am still Catholic. But as far as the earthly church itself goes, they make Enron look good. I hate to say it but it’s true. And it’s sad because they’re chasing people away in droves and they’re certainly not doing anything to bring new people in.
John on March 15, 2007 at 1:06 PM
By the church thinking in centuries, I mean they tend to not be as reactive as we’re used to in the US, where everything is done reactively on the fly and immediate. The church acts very slowly, deliberately and carefully thought out. Which is a double edge sword, and it got cut in the scandal. Its just how they roll, they were that way before anyone of us were born, and they’ll be that way when we all die.
Bad Candy on March 15, 2007 at 1:08 PM
The Church has backed away from its birth control prohibition, at least at the pastoral level. And this was never a matter of dogma.
I have always felt that this birth control ban was predicated on the general uneasiness that the Church has with sexuality; think it undermined the Church’s much more important position on abortion. The idea being that people in general took to looking on the Church as out of touch with the laity in all matters having to do with procreation, which took away some of the weight of their position–a kind of “there they go again thing”. Pity.
honora on March 15, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I think this is only thing that keeps most Catholics in the church. I think I include myself, I honestly don’t know.
Lunch, BC, go eat lunch.
Bad Candy on March 15, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Hannity pulled out the, “Judge not lest you be judged” ammo because Euteneuer doesn’t know everything about Hannity and used the word “superficial” to decribe Hannity’s presentation on birth control? Bwahahahaha!
Does Sean know anything about Euteneuer? Hannity thinks he can’t be painted with Church’s pederast scandal because, as a layman, he wasn’t involved, but he finds it convenient to paint Euteneuer, a priest, with it because Euteneuer is calling him on his birth control comments. Seems like Hannity was having his own Torquemada moment — ‘The rope is still good, where’s the Church janitor?’
Words to the wise for any future guests on H&C:
– Plan to ask Hannity if he knows anything about yourself.
– Use “judge not lest you be judged” whenever Hannity uses an disparaging adjective about your position.
– If you’re a not a Catholic, paint him with the Church’s pederast scandal using the degrees of separation rule.
– If you’re a Catholic you can still use the degrees of separation rule if you sit in, say, the back pew and you want to tempt the odds.
Dusty on March 15, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Sydney, I was exaggerating for effect, yes.
Yes Catholics read the Bible.
But, when your reading comes to a different interpretation of the Bible from your Priest, what then?
I only understand this from a Methodist standpoint (where we all come to God in our way and in our understanding, for a general overview, based on reading the Bible). It seems from what I read here that Catholicism views this differently, and that a personal relationship with God must follow guidelines from the Chuch/Priest/Pope/? that I’m unfamiliar with.
Denying someone Communion due to a difference of opinion on scripture or “what God meant” seems a bit more stringent than the rules that Methodists have, and I’m trying to comprehend the following.
1) How do these rules come about? Is it only scripture, or are there other rulings that also evolve? I’m not familiar with God’s word on birth control preventing conception being codified in the Bible; so how is this clearly stated as to the Will of God?
2) When is this appropriate (which rulings, and from whom those rulings come that can deny Communion)?
3) Can these rules change, and how?
I think a clearer comprehension of how Catholics view this could help to understand the significance of the discussion here. I (and likely many non-Catholics) don’t understand how the Pope, Cardinals, etc. come into this, or what weight their words have (and why)…
gekkobear on March 15, 2007 at 1:17 PM
for those “disenchanted Catholics,” try Orthodoxy. There are some differences, but our stance on contraception within marriage is much more flexible. it can be used in the context of marriage to enhance marital life, space children and protect the health of the woman.
pullingmyhairout on March 15, 2007 at 1:18 PM
I apologize if I have offended my Christian brothers and sisters here on this thread. As penance, I will go wander in the wilderness for a couple of weeks, okay? Be back in April.
It is true that I AM ignorant regarding MANY things. I won’t deny it. But if we are truly Christians, we should be treating each other better than what we witnessed in this thread. Sean Hannity and church officials should treat each other better, as well. Like AllahPundit, I am amused at how quickly things degrade into a free-for-all whenever he posts topics that have a religious bent to them. He laughs at us. I am guilty of sometimes laughing with him.
So sue me.
CyberCipher on March 15, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Gekkobear,
In a nutshell, it has a lot to do with Tradition and doctrine.
pullingmyhairout on March 15, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Last night on Hannity & Colmes I saw the unctious Geraldo Rivera (who looks like a 1970’s porn star named Harry Reems) just laugh at the paranoia of the people who felt threatened by the Flying Imams. Rivera is a joke. I wish on his next flight he and Alan Colmes gets to sit next to them.
Hilts on March 15, 2007 at 1:21 PM
The Catholic Church changed the Nicean Creed. The argument over the nature of the Trinity is what helped split the original church. If you want the true original religion, look into Orthodoxy.
pullingmyhairout on March 15, 2007 at 1:27 PM
The Church has backed away from its birth control prohibition, at least at the pastoral level. And this was never a matter of dogma.
The Church position on contraception is not a rule arbitrarily checked off from a list of possibilities, but part of an entire theology of dignified human interpersonal relationships, and extending from that, the relationship with God. JPII’s Theology of the Body explores the questions of what is the proper role of sexuality in human life, and the difference between physical love as objective, or worshipful.
Reject it or embrace it, there is nothing shallow or happenstance about it. Two thousand years of contemplation by people who were every bit as intelligent, insightful, and modern as we are, is not easily deconstructed with history’s most tired (and oft repeated) appeal: but now we know better.
a4g on March 15, 2007 at 1:30 PM
CyberCipher,
The conspiracy of silence you’re alluding to came to an end in the 1990s. I don’t know anyone who brushes this issue under the carpet and have read articles in national newspapers where it makes constant reappearances in the letters section over teh last decade. Heres an exceprt from the Irish Times, dated September 18, 2002:
aengus on March 15, 2007 at 1:31 PM
pullingmyhairout on March 15, 2007 at 1:27 PM
No you don’t. A one-hundred-comment debate I’ll get into. A 1700 year old one, not so much.
a4g on March 15, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Do you need a Jew here?
/ducking and running
WriterMom on March 15, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Exciting thread! The religious ones always are. The funniest statement so far has been that it was the LIBERAL priests that did the molesting. What the he** does that matter?
That aside, of course some Protestants have problems with the tenants of Catholicism. That’s why we’re not Catholic. So how does the Catholic church view Protestants? As heretics, no? To state the obvious, differing religious views always cause conflict, the important thing is we’re not blowing each other up (not lately anyway) over our differences.
As far as Hannity is concerned, if a Catholic priest is telling you that you’re not being a proper Catholic, one would think a good Catholic would listen. Not being snarky, so correct me if I’m wrong.
And when Hannity started espousing the “You don’t know me, Judge not!” line, I was waiting for the lightning.
SouthernDem on March 15, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Just a quick thought:
What has the Catholic church done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Enrique on March 15, 2007 at 1:40 PM
And while that may not be news (current), it is very positive development indeed. I believe that in recent times, both Catholics AND Protestants have been doing a better job of dealing with these issues out-in-the-open (in the public arena). I am an advocate of remaining vigilant. There are many of us that suffered because of the “conspiracy of silence” (as you call it) that occured back in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s. Don’t think that everything is all better now. The repercussions and the damage done by those past abuses continue to reverberate and affect people’s lives even now — in some cases, more than 40 years later. Perhaps I am more sensitive about the issue, since my principal ministry is with young children. If I’m lucky, I won’t allow let it to overtake me with bitterness or anger — wouldn’t want to end-up like Bill O’Reilly, ya’ know.
CyberCipher on March 15, 2007 at 1:43 PM
gekkobear,
I’ll do my best to try and help, but I’m not an expert.
Your confusion is understandable if you only look at the Bible. The Bible, for instance, doesn’t talk about cloning, abortion, genetic manipulation to create human-animal hybrids, etc. But the Bible isn’t the only thing that the Church has, even though it is supremely important. The Gospels were written in around 70 AD, after Christ commissioned the Apostles to teach, and in fact were written after many of Paul’s letters that are also in the New Testament (which were written in the late 40 and early 50s AD). The “Bible” itself was finally “codified” sometime in the 3rd century, after certain texts were rejected as unauthoritative. All prior to that time, the Church was teaching and preaching. This teaching authority is parallel to the authority of the Bible and Catholics call it the Tradition (capital T) or Magisterium. Catholics believe that their teaching authority in the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit, that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (though individual priests are prone to sin, the Magesterium is protected), that the Pope is the successor of Peter who has authority to bind and lose things, he has been commissioned to feed the sheep, and has been given the keys of heaven.
There are different “rulings” though. There are doctrines of the faith, which are required of all Catholics who profess to be believers (it’d make no sense for someone who denied Jesus rose from the dead to call himself a Catholic, for example). “Rulings” that aren’t doctrines still have much force, though, such as priestly celebacy, which is not a requirement of the faith but is a longstanding manner that is a rule of Priests of the Western Rite. Catholic priests who are of the Eastern Rite have different manners and may not necessarily be celebite. Married Anglican priests to convert to Catholicism also may, of course, continue in their marriage. Other statements of the Church may not have the same authority, but still should be given due respect and reflection. Since I’m not an expert I’m not entirely clear on the distinction, but it’s not appropriate to be a “minimalist Catholic” anyway.
I think that the general rule is that persistent and manifest sin or heresy means that it is appropriate to deny someone Communion, because for a person to take Communion in manifest sin or heresy endangers their soul. Denial of Communion is not “punishment”, per se, but a teaching moment to force a person to reflect on their sin or heresy and confess the sin, or correct their understanding. Doctrines of the Faith do not change, ever, and haven’t changed in over 2,000 years. Non-doctrines, like how to do certain things, have changed. Vatican 2, for instance, didn’t change anything about the doctrines, but changed a lot about how they were preached.
As I said, doctrines do not change. The Church has no authority to change them, since they were instituted by Christ. Other non-doctrines, like priestly celebacy, can change, but are extremely unlikely to given the thousand year history of that mannerism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the basic doctrines of the Church and notes when it is appropriate for people to use their own prudential judgment to make conclusions on how to apply the faith to everyday life.
A person can receive communion again after confessing their sin or correcting their mistaken understanding of the faith.
Hope this helps a bit. If it didn’t, again, I’m not an expert and others might better explain things than me!
Sydney Carton on March 15, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Actually, no. The explicit ban dates back only to Pius XI and bans on contraception are not considered infallible teachings.
honora on March 15, 2007 at 1:47 PM
If the discussion turns to Catholic Guilt, I’ll let you know. You can join in the guilt discussion as a Subject Matter Expert.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 15, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Dammit, I swore I wouldn’t let Allah suck me into one of HA religion flamewars. Bastard…
Bad Candy on March 15, 2007 at 1:54 PM
The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the teachings on contraception and other matters. It’s a very simple statement of what the Church teaches on these things. Here’s a link to the relevant section regarding contraception.
Sydney Carton on March 15, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Whenever the first text someone quotes is “judge not lest ye be judged,” and they do it in that King James kind of vernacular, I always roll my eyes a bit, and think, “Did you know that there is a lot more to the Bible than just that verse.”
Same with “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Hannity’s quotation of those texts, in my opinion, lent credibility to the priest.
Disclosure – Protestant “Academic”
nailinmyeye on March 15, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Oh, and I thought the best part of the whole think was Alan saying that they needed a Jew to speak. Fantastic.
nailinmyeye on March 15, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Actually, no. The explicit ban dates back only to Pius XI and bans on contraception are not considered infallible teachings.
For me, the hardest question is always this: am I looking for a way out, or a way in?
When I reflect on some of the most strident positions I have taken in my life, those which I now reject and am often ashamed of, I notice that as much as I wanted to pick and parse my way through battle against the external argument, it was the internal truth with which I was truly at war.
If the Catholic Church is truly the Bride of Christ, then it is “true drink”– a package deal. And although there is much room for spirited debate as we progress through salvation history, that debate is not open-ended in scope. Openness to life, openness to God’s plan, yes, even submission to God’s wisdom is part of the slow road to perfecting ourselves.
The Theology of the Body can feel like a straitjacket. Or it can feel like an awakening. It all depends on the way you approach it.
a4g on March 15, 2007 at 2:03 PM
For me, it’s how to be an active participant in my own spirituality–not merely a vessel. I remember as a child being taught that only Catholics could reach heaven. That teaching evolved, as others have and others will.
The core beliefs, the doctrines, don’t change, but I believe God gave me a mind for a reason. Don’t get me started on limbo…..
honora on March 15, 2007 at 2:09 PM
In the end, Memes that outlaw birth control will survive longer than memes that don’t. Just think about it from an evolutionary perspective.
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 15, 2007 at 2:10 PM
I don’t know JayHaw, they had forms of contraceptives even in medieval times. It’s likely both memes will survive.
aengus on March 15, 2007 at 2:13 PM
For me, it’s how to be an active participant in my own spirituality–not merely a vessel.
The core beliefs, the doctrines, don’t change, but I believe God gave me a mind for a reason.
Both statements with which I can wholeheartedly agree.
Now let me elucidate on the the fine points of the (mis)understanding of the teachings on limbo…
a4g on March 15, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Hannity comes off as a complete jerk. The “Judge not lest thee be judged” he repeated should have been answered immediately by “Hypocrite, remove the beam from thine own eye.”
Hannity apparently doesn’t realize that in the US he can be any religion he wants to be. Most Protestants do not agree with the Catholic Church on the doctrine against contraception. He also has disdain for the hierarchy of the Church. Again, as an American he has the right to convert to any religion he wants. Catholicism is a belief system, much of which Hannity doesn’t believe.
One of the roles that a priest plays is to educate and to rebuke those who persist in heresy. Hannity believes he has the charism of infallibility and is above correction. So, I’m not really sure what makes Hannity believe that he is Catholic. And the funny thing is that he is being given a taste of his own medicine and, boy, does he look like a baby.
And let’s be clear, we are all sinners. And we are all called to make sound judgments in the conduct of our personal lives. This usually leads us to have to judge the actions and motives of others. Judging others is necessary. We will be judged by the same standard by which we judge. If this priest is judged by his public adherence to Catholic teaching (including rebuking obstinate talk show hosts) he’ll do fine. All he is doing is preaching the Word.
cmay on March 15, 2007 at 2:57 PM
JayHaw,
The concept of memes has been so discredited that you should be ashamed to even raise that as a valid argument.
cmay on March 15, 2007 at 2:58 PM
86 comments and a plea for civility from Allah — that there’s good blogging, I don’t care who you are.
Ali-Bubba on March 15, 2007 at 3:10 PM
There is a world of difference between listening to someone preach and giving him communion.
Tim Burton on March 15, 2007 at 3:11 PM
At this stage of my research, memes are logically consistent and I have not yet seen a reasoned argument against them that I agree with. As such, I will continue to use the concept of memes in my disucussions.
However, I am not dogmatic, If you can point me to the argument that completely discredits this concept, then I will research it and adjust or not adjust my thoughts on this subject.
I do not accept the “everybody knows” type argument. I would like to see your actual evidence.
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 15, 2007 at 3:11 PM
But what about memes that strap on dynamite belts and blow themselves up in shopping malls? The evolutionary factors there are kind of hard to figure, right?
Ali-Bubba on March 15, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Funny, except that teachers molest children at a higher rate than priests. Do you see people calling for their children to be kept away from public schools?
Tim Burton on March 15, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I would not challenge the Catholic church’s doctrine’s on the sanctity of life. It would be foolish for me to do so, especially since I generally share those beliefs. I am not so quick to condemn Sean, however.
You (and several others here) have clearly registered your suspicions that I am somehow an anti-Catholic bigot. Frankly, I am not even certain how I would go about qualifying in that category. (My ignorance is showing again.) Permit me the indulgance of registering my suspicions as well (since that is exactly what they are, viz. suspicions, assertions that I can not prove, but that I am very uneasy about). I suspect that the entire reason that the priest made his appearance on H&C was NOT to challenge Sean on his stance on birth control — I believe that this was a ruse. (THIS is the agenda that has nothing to do with God that I am talking about here.) I think that the real reason that the priest made his appearance was to humiliate Hannity in ANY way that he could. I suspect that he did it, simply because he (the priest) is a liberal, and that he hates conservatives — and I suspect that he leveraged/used the birth control issue and used church doctrine to “get at” Hannity in order to discredit him. I can not prove ANY of this. But just as you have your suspicions about me being a bigot, I have my suspicions that the priest’s underlying motivations were not what he purports them to be. Call me paranoid if you like.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not necessarily defending Hannity’s stance on birth control, nor am I defending his style or demeanor. Sean was put in the uncomfortable position of being placed on the defensive at the outset, but virtue of the authority placed in the priest by the church. Many of you may not like Hannity, and may not agree with him, but let’s face it, he was placed in a no-win situation right from the get-go. He may not have handled the situation all that well. If I had been in the same situation, I probably wouldn’t have been able to handle it very well either.
CyberCipher on March 15, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Not half the problem that molesting teachers are, yet you don’t hear the atheist liberals condemning public schools.
…And I’m not Catholic…
Tim Burton on March 15, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Please continue to educate me. I would like to see statistics on this (if you have them). And if you are correct, I’ll even admit my naivety, in that I am a bit surprised. I think the term “rate” needs clarification.
Then, on the other hand, most of teachers (at least in the public schools) don’t make any claims about representing God.
CyberCipher on March 15, 2007 at 3:23 PM
The doctrines, right or wrong, should be in the hands of the priesthood.
What Hannity “preaches” may have been morally and logically true, but if it conflicts with Catholic doctrine it isn’t Catholicism.
He should deal with his concerns privately or, if he wants to roll out his own spin, he should leave the church.
uptight on March 15, 2007 at 3:26 PM
I have just one question. Respond to it as you will, I will forever be leaving this thread. Here’s my question.
It has been stated several times on this thread that someone is “CATHOLIC in name ONLY?” or unworthy of receiving the body of Christ at mass. Who on this Earth, is in a position to judge me? Who on this Earth, has the right to decide if I’m a good enough Catholic? Have you not sinned, that you have the right to decide if I’m worthy of the body of Christ?
I personally don’t support abortion, but my question still stands.
amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Holier than thou?
My god is bigger than your god and he gonna kick your gods ass!
Now for confession and penance…
Kini on March 15, 2007 at 3:31 PM
The other part of my question, which I submitted before done:
Have priests not sinned? You talk to them, I’m sure you’ll find that many have missed at least one Sunday mass.
amerpundit on March 15, 2007 at 3:32 PM
It’s very simple to understand, guys, even if you’re not Catholic.
* The Catholic church has a canon of doctrine and law which is functionally unquestionable. If you don’t believe it, then you’re not “orthodox”, thus not Catholic (which means orthodox), and thus an unbeliever/heretic. If you are an unbeliever or a heretic, you would not be permitted to join a religious ceremony meant for orthodox believers any more than a Muslim or a Witch would.
It’s that simple. You believe it or you don’t. If you don’t believe it, then you can’t join the party with the people who do… it’s how religions work.
You mischaracterize Calvin and Luther. The idea that people had to pay their way out of purgatory to build the Pope’s basillica did not persist for 1500 years.
Lehosh on March 15, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »