Catholic bishops to voters: Your salvation is at stake
posted at 5:25 pm on November 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
They’re not saying you’re required to vote a certain way. They’re just saying … think hard.
And not just about abortion, either. One of the other issues God will be in the booth watching for is immigration.
Proclaiming a sense of new energy and empowerment, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops on Wednesday issued instructions to Catholic voters that their eternal salvation could be at stake when they cast ballots.
Bishops emphasized that voters must consider the church’s teachings on abortion and other moral issues when they select a candidate for the White House or any other office. If they don’t, bishops said, it’s not clergy who will judge them but God.
“It is important to be clear that the political choices faced by citizens have an impact on general peace and prosperity and also the individual’s salvation,” the bishops said in the document, titled “Faithful Citizenship.” “Similarly, the kinds of laws and policies supported by public officials affect their spiritual well-being.”…
Voters are implored not to support abortion-rights political candidates but also advised that views on abortion should not be the sole factor. Catholics should also weigh church teaching on such moral issues as immigration, just war and poverty, bishops said.
The voting guidelines followed a letter issued by outgoing President Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., calling for a responsible transition in Iraq.
“Our nation must focus on the ethics of exit than on the ethics of intervention,” Skylstad wrote.
After the document was approved, Cardinal O’Malley of Boston told an interviewer that it sometimes “borders on scandal” that Catholics continue to vote for pro-choice Democrats from Massachusetts. How that squares with the emphasis on not being single-issue voters escapes me. The same Newsmax article fills in a few more blanks about the new voting instructions:
“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many,” the bishops declared in the document, called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
The document also states that “as Catholics we are not single-issue voters,” but adds, “a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”
Given some American bishops’ pronouncements on amnesty, I take it that border enforcement falls under the heading of “promotion of racism.” (And staying the course in Iraq, too?)
My only objection to all this is that it seems not to go far enough. They’re declaring certain behaviors “intrinsically evil” — but not insisting that Catholics vote against them. Why not? I could understand an exception being made in a case where a voter had to choose between two evils, but what’s the excuse in a match-up along the lines of Rudy vs. Fred where foreign policy is basically a wash and the key differences come down to abortion? The bishops’ reluctance to threaten excommunication for Rudy voters in those circumstances seems motivated less by principle than by the fear that many Catholics would bristle at being asked to bow to their own church’s teachings at such an important moment and will walk away. Or have I misunderstood something? I’m asking seriously.
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 »
Perhaps they don’t want to specifically endorse any candidate so as to maintain their tax exempt status.
Ordinary1 on November 15, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Yep, I’m sure that’s a big part of it. But in that case, they’re willing to permit “intrinsically evil” policies to flourish lest it jeopardize their tax break? That can’t be right.
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 5:32 PM
No time to read this crap. In the discussion of “intrinsically evil” behaviors, did the document make any reference to child rape?
F-ing hypocrites.
peski on November 15, 2007 at 5:33 PM
The Church just doesn’t want to offend its choir. Better to make a point and let Catholics vote for a Catholic than explicitly undermine a candidacy that may very well prevent the policies that stand antithetical to Church teachings — and that may find great support from the regular pew sitters. In short, it’s a carrot/stick to the non-believers and a gentle reminder to the true-believers.
Vizzini on November 15, 2007 at 5:35 PM
This may sound facetious, but seriously – the only reason the Catholic Church still has any respectability in 2007 is that its followers don’t pay close attention to its teachings. I think the Catholic higher-ups have realized this, which is why they mostly act like grandparents – they tell you what you should and shouldn’t do, but they’re not really holding you to it, and they love you anyway.
I gotta believe your average bishop/cardinal is well aware that the Church has lost a great deal of legitimacy. They have to know that most folks just tune out when the Church reminds us that they still oppose abortion. At this point, I think they do this kind of thing to keep up appearances.
Of course, it’s easy to forget that the Catholic Church operates globally. By tut-tutting pro-choice voters in America, they still send a message of moral consistency to their more-easily-led minions in the developing world. They have to know that no American Catholic actually takes dictation from the Church anymore (well, maybe my mom still does), but to actually raise the prospect of excommunication would probably kill what little legitimacy they still have in the modern world.
Anyway, I kind of rambled on there, but I’m sure there’s a good point in there somewhere.
Enrique on November 15, 2007 at 5:36 PM
BTW, “that may find great support from the regular pew sitters” refers to the Giuliani candidacy.
Vizzini on November 15, 2007 at 5:36 PM
How does it offend the choir to say that if you claim to follow the Church, you sort of have to follow the Church?
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 5:36 PM
I’m a Catholic, and I pray to God that the Catholic Church loses their tax exempt status. I’m sick and tired of being threatened by men who claim to speak for God.
My first three words of this comment are most likely changing to “I used to be a Catholic.”
Gregor on November 15, 2007 at 5:37 PM
“Render unto Ceasar…” Rudy would have a country to run. Not a country of Catholics to run. If Catholics had to pass public policy through the Vatican, there never would have been a JFK.
You can live your life according to spiritual beliefs without being compelled to inflict them on everyone else.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Wow, Pelosi will be having many sleepless nights, agonizing over staying commited to her faith and God’s will, versus perpetuating her own, and her political party’s, perpetual thirst for power.
Hee Hee, riiiiiiiiight.
RW Wacko on November 15, 2007 at 5:38 PM
That’s what they’re getting at vis-a-vis “individual salvation,” though, as I take it. They’re saying never mind everyone else; if YOU vote for abortion, it’s a black mark on YOUR soul and it may jeopardize YOUR chance at heaven.
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 5:39 PM
It’s all for the greater good Allah. Selfish atheists wouldn’t understand the kind of sacrifices that are involved here, ya know. It’s like the people who are for term limits until they get into power. They HAVE to stay beyond two terms, b/c there is so much GOOD they can do.
RW Wacko on November 15, 2007 at 5:40 PM
I’m not going to jump off a bridge or, say, commit fraud because a priest does.
amerpundit on November 15, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Yes, I think it’s a question that churches should consider. Does taking the tax break mean you sell out your values? If you find yourself as a church saying yes to that, time to reconsider taking the tax break.
I think most churches stay out of the business of endorsing candidates. Just preach the truth about what is near to God’s heart and the congregation will vote accordingly. I guess that isn’t always the case with Massachusetts Catholics anyway.
Ordinary1 on November 15, 2007 at 5:42 PM
But they don’t vote accordingly. That’s what’s got O’Malley so upset. There’s no ambiguity in the fact that the Church opposes abortion; if there was, calling it an “intrinsic evil” today should clear everything up. So what excuse do believing Catholics have in voting for pro-choice candidates unless those candidates’ opponents are even more intrinsically evil?
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 5:45 PM
My over/under for this thread is 350. It’s got a little bit of everything–abortion, immigration, Iraq, Catholic vs Protestant, God’s existence, and Rudy. All that even assuming we don’t verge off-topic.
Good work AP.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Because the choir’s already in the Church and following it; threatening damnation over people considering, say, Giuliani as a viable and bearable candidate is a losing proposition because it not only turns the guns on their own — conservative Catholics who in large part vote Republican/pro-life on social issues anyway — but it raises the probability that an abortion policy running against the Church’s stance will be affected in 2008. The Church may be out of the woods when it comes to most of the sex scandal stuff, but it doesn’t need unnecessary fractures in its congregation, particularly among its most staunch supporters.
Vizzini on November 15, 2007 at 5:48 PM
too funny :-)
Ordinary1 on November 15, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Not to say they’d like a pro-choice President. But the Church is more concerned about the policy, and I think it’s (quietly) fine with the messenger being a bit different than the message they hope will be delivered.
Vizzini on November 15, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Vote and repent!!1!1!
Dusty on November 15, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Nah. Traffic is dead today. If we make it to 100 I’ll be happy.
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Religion bashing time .. just like clockwork.
:)
redrock on November 15, 2007 at 5:51 PM
I’m not bashing the bishops. They make a lot of sense to me, as I said in the post. If the Church, a hierarchical organization, believes certain things to be intrinsically evil then they have every right to expect their congregants to follow their teachings on those subjects.
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Special News Alert: Most U.S. voters don’t vote in strict accordance with the stance of their church or religion… STORY AT 11
Hollowpoint on November 15, 2007 at 5:52 PM
How is it that liberal candidates can visit churches, speak to the congregations, ask for their votes, and not be stripped of their tax exempt status? I do not want to hear from any church spokesman, theologian, or one of it’s organizations about what I should consider before casting my vote. Teach the word from whichever version of the Bible you use, leave politics alone.
24K lady on November 15, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Perhaps O’Malley ought to take a look at what values the Catholic Church is instilling in it’s people, if he wants to find the answer. Consider that the northeastern US is one of the most liberal places in the country, yet it’s also the most Catholic. As always, I’m sorry to the Catholics here, but the majority of people who would identify themselves as Catholics are simply insurance policy Christians. The think showing up at Church and going through some motions every once and a while is what they need to do, “just in case”. They keep their beliefs locked up in the church, then they enter back in to the secular world and forget about it until next time. I’m not saying there aren’t exceptions, but don’t pretend what I’m saying isn’t true.
RightWinged on November 15, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Yeah, Benedict is old school. I wonder if the Vatican longs for the days when it could bypass the voters and interact directly with the King.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Yeah, it’s true to an extent for most denominations. I think maybe more so for Catholics. I base that on some Barna research that said Catholics for the most part were living their lives like mainstream America. I’m not sure why that is.
Bottom line is we are all responsible for our own walk with God and we are responsible ultimately only to Him. O’Malley can get upset and point out the truth, but individuals have to figure out for themselves what God’s will is, and if they are going to follow it.
Ordinary1 on November 15, 2007 at 5:55 PM
The Catholic Church leaders’ support for “Open Borders” and “Amnesty” is already well-known to most of us.
That is why I chose to follow Scripture alone, and not the Catholic Church, or Pat Robertson, or some mega-church pastor asking for money.
Scripture speaks for me.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 5:58 PM
A solid Protestant stance. But what are Catholics supposed to do?
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Now if we could abort all of the immigrants…
right2bright on November 15, 2007 at 5:59 PM
So, in effect they’re saying: feel free to vote for a pro-abortion candidate as long as they are against the war in Iraq, for open-borders, and pro-welfare state?
Or am I missing their point?
Tio on November 15, 2007 at 6:01 PM
I remain Catholic but am increasingly dismayed by the Church’s alignment with Democrat policies when it comes to the war and amnesty. Sometimes, the Sunday Mass feels more like a Democrat rally, and that ain’t good. It’s so short-sighted, and I don’t expect that from the Church.
Kensington on November 15, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Absolutely right. The devil seems to be in the prioritizing of those intrinsic evils. I believe that the Pope has been pretty clear about his opposition to the U.S. involvement in Iraq, crystal clear about his opposition to abortion, but not nearly so clear as to how he feels about the future of illegal immigrants in the U.S. His sympathies lie 100% on the side of the aliens, but only a handful of Cardinals have spoken out specifically, to me knowledge.
So, are Catholics to look for a pro-amnesty, anti-war, anti-abortion-extremist candidate? And just where would one find such a creature?
Jaibones on November 15, 2007 at 6:03 PM
That brings up a separate question: If you’re forced to choose between two candidates, each of whom espouses an “intrinsically evil” policy, why not just stay home?
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 6:03 PM
My comment was intended as a respectful hint to my HA Catholic friends to ask themselves to re-consider the epistemology of their religious sources.
Having “Scripture alone” serving as the sole epistemological standard (or yardstick) to adjudicate competing and conflicting religious claims solves many problems.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 6:06 PM
What the bishops are saying is just this”God will judge you on how you act period” If you vote for a pro choice person, than it goes against the churches teachings period.BTW the church scandal has rocked the church but it sure hasn’t hurt my faith. I am not the one being judged by condeming any priest, God judges all mankind. Belive it or not it is your choice, That one gift”Choice” was given to us by the Creator, how you make your choices is up to you not any politician or church leader or commentator on a blog.
bones47 on November 15, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Would this be a case of “Three out of four ain’t bad”?
Tio on November 15, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Become Sola Scriptura Protestants—er…perfected Catholics.
jdpaz on November 15, 2007 at 6:08 PM
In other words, “let God be true and every man a liar” :-)
Ordinary1 on November 15, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Cardinal O’Malley is a practicing Catholic.
The USCCB is comprised entirely of practicing Catholics.
This means, among other things, that he (and they) find abortion and embryonic stem cell research to be gravely immoral, as should ALL Catholics, including John Kerry, who uses the “I’m personally pro-life, but since I’m a politician with absolutely zero principle who likes my NARAL and PP blood money, morals don’t matter” excuse.
What’s your next post going to be? “In shocking new encyclical, Pope condemns homosexuality, murder, date rape.”
Sorry if that sounded hostile, but I have a deep respect for Cardinal O’Malley (as do many in the Boston and Fall River Dioceses) and this isn’t a shocking revelation. It would be like Christopher Hitchens writing yet another long-winded diatribe about the nonexistence of God.
Oh, and dedalus: the only time secularists seem to have a problem with people turning their personal morality into public policy is when Christians do it. Heaven forfend if Christians should promote policies with millenia of bulletproof success if the idea came from their religion. No, we must reject our personal morals, regardless of how right they are because they aren’t “hip, new, and secular” ones.
We wouldn’t want to impose morality on anyone. After all, we have condoms to give to 6th graders and we shouldn’t let religion get in the way of our ever more progressive utopia.
BKennedy on November 15, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Allah, please do me and all conservative Catholics a favor by not putting a photo of the very conservative Pope in an article about liberal American bishops.
Connie on November 15, 2007 at 6:12 PM
What the bishops are saying is: here are some guidelines for making a decisions. We know some of them are not easy. In the end it will be you facing God in heaven and having to account for them.
bnelson44 on November 15, 2007 at 6:13 PM
I think most of us Christians agree with this, but just wish the Catholic Church would get the same memo. I’m not worried in the slightest about what the Pope thinks. Anyone else notice that the various Popes seem to have different views from one another on a variety of extremely important topics? They’re obviously not as close to God as we’re made to believe.
Gregor on November 15, 2007 at 6:14 PM
It was the Catholic Church who put together the bible. I find it curious that fact gets lost among the sola scriptura folk. In fact Christianity was practiced long before the bible was even created.
I know, OT, but your re-consideration may be in order.
geckomon on November 15, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Why not? They answer to him.
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Yes, but what of God’s One True Church™ as the sole arbiter of the meaning of scripture?
And I mean that with only the purest of hearts.
Jaibones on November 15, 2007 at 6:16 PM
As a Catholic, I have no problem with it. This is the same dufus that threatened officials with excommunication for opposing amnesty.
Yes, I called the Pope a Dufus.
Gregor on November 15, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Let’s please not inch towards a Catholic/Protestant flame war. Especially since I’d be obliged to jump in on behalf of the Catholics.
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Tough one, Connie. I’m pretty sure that you haven’t seen much separation there…yet.
Jaibones on November 15, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Such As?
I’m waiting for an example of the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Pope. You can tell there hasn’t been one because the idiots in the media would love him for bringing “progressive” thought to that “stingy old” Catholic Church.
And that’s a laughable statement coming from a Protestant(if you are one). Those folks belive in whatever the minister tells them to. Sola Scriptura? Explain to me then where homosexual marriage is approved of then. Protestants have no problem pulling unfounded moral precepts out of thin air.
BKennedy on November 15, 2007 at 6:18 PM
I can’t believe this story was not bigger when it hit the news yesterday:
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7094215.stm
The implications of our first cloned primate are *huge*. I remember back in 1978 when Louise Brown, the first test tube baby, was born, my catholic family was absolutely aghast. My mother questioned whether babies from this type of fertilization even had a soul!! Now, we hear nary a word about this routine procedure.
Now, we are getting closer and closer to the human genome, and the macaque monkey is not too far removed from us humans. Human cloning *will* happen eventually. I don’t know how our elected officials will react to this. Can somebody tell me how Pope Ratzinger would have me vote on this issue?
HeIsSailing on November 15, 2007 at 6:19 PM
See my warning above, please.
Allahpundit on November 15, 2007 at 6:20 PM
That is not my intention. I am a Catholic who worships in a multi-denominational church and believe that we are all sinners in God’s eyes, and that denomination is meaningless.
Jaibones on November 15, 2007 at 6:20 PM
He ain’t that conservative.
Alex K on November 15, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Christlike of you, Allah.
Brothers — pray before you type at this time.
Jaibones on November 15, 2007 at 6:21 PM
I accept the offer of reconsidering my views in light of what Scripture has to say about them.
Jailbones,
Can I please have some sympathy from you concerning my boys? It is kinda painful now.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Christlike to take the Catholics’ side? Heh, I’ll go with that.
Alex K on November 15, 2007 at 6:22 PM
“HotAir . . . your “conservative” choice for anti-religion, anti-Christian, and especially anti-Catholic blogging and commenting.”
I’m a Catholic . . . you know, a perfected Christian. One that doesn’t kow-tow to an individualistic interpretation of books written in original languages I can’t even read. I’m a Catholic . . . someone who cares that the Church isn’t Republican or Democrat. Who knows that God isn’t “Left” or “Right”.
This website (along with all the numskulls who continually bash *the* Church) is appropriately named.
tizzidale on November 15, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Um … I never suggested there was. I simply said many of the Popes have disagreed on extremely important topics relating to Christianity.
You do know that Popes have had some pretty major disagreements, right?
You’re not paying attention. I’ve made it clear that I’m Catholic … for now.
Gregor on November 15, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Here are the docs if anyone wants to read what the Bishops are saying unfiltered by the media:
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
bnelson44 on November 15, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Are you saying that in the Harry Truman sense, the buck stops here, i.e., that the Pope is ultmimately responsible for all prouncements on the National Council of Bishops?
I ask because, the Pope would be wrt, say, their abortion position, though, I he is not for several of the others. Specifically, I think he is much less responsible for the Bishops’ poorly thought out stands on Iraq, immigration, and poverty with less and less responsibility for for those in that order.
Dusty on November 15, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Get over it. The Pope isn’t a neo-con. He doesn’t work to bring the gospel of Reagan.
tizzidale on November 15, 2007 at 6:36 PM
dude, get over yourself.
tizzidale on November 15, 2007 at 6:40 PM
No, but the Catholic Church (especially the Jesuit Catholic Church) seems to be increasingly interested in open borders one-world government, and they are becoming more in-your-face about demanding that we desire the same thing.
Gregor on November 15, 2007 at 6:41 PM
LOL! I little bit of irony there. Just a bit.
Gregor on November 15, 2007 at 6:42 PM
This boils my blood. I AM A CATHOLIC, went to Catholic Schools, sent my kids to Catholic schools UNTIL learning that the church hierarchy ONLY CARES ABOUT MONEY. I have nothing against my fellow Catholics (fallen, and otherwise) but I have no stomach for those running the church. Here’s why:
My daughter’s Confirmation class (8th grade/13 & 14 yr olds) had a co-ed sleepover in the church basement as part of their education. Their teachers showed 2 “R” rated movies, one of which was “The Crush“. (Alicia Silverstone played a 14 yr old obsessed with her adult neighbor to the point where she murders his fiance.)Parents were outraged, complained, wrote letters to the Bishop and in the end WERE IGNORED! FIFTEEN YEARS LATER THAT PRIEST HAS FINALLY BEEN THROWN OUT OF THE CHURCH FOR RAPING A TEENAGER. And the Bishop’s office claims this priest had no history… and there was “only one incident”. Evil. Liar.
The rules change constantly. My sister married in the church in the 60’s, had 3 children, got divorced (which is allowed)and then when her husband decided to remarry (which is not allowed) got their marriage annulled. While the rules & procedures for annullment used to make it almost impossible, the church has come to realize driving all those who remarry away hurts them in their most tender place, the collection plate. So now all you have to say is that one of you was psychologically immature, plunk down a couple of thousand bucks and they wave a magic wand that makes your marriage disappear and your children are left in in limbo.
Remember limbo? Like poor St. Christopher, Patron Saint of Drivers, limbo no longer exists. It went the way of so many of the Catholic rules like no meat on Friday.
The Pope and the church leaders stand to gain at the collection plate if they can take in money for the illegal immigrants (our priest spent it in casinos). You want to understand their motives, just FOLLOW THE MONEY.
This Pope and the Bishops should worry about keeping their own houses in order and when it comes to telling us how to vote:
STFUKEEP IT TO THEMSELVES! Too bad we Catholics can’t APPLY for excommunication… OR MAYBE I JUST DID.NightmareOnKStreet on November 15, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Allah, “Papa Don’t Preach” was inspired, Bro. Loved it.
mugged on November 15, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Well, they were always interested in that. Just with the head of that one-world government being in Rome.
brak on November 15, 2007 at 6:43 PM
This why I this why I think religious leaders should be very careful when getting involved with politics.
terryannonline on November 15, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Liberation theology
Gregor on November 15, 2007 at 6:47 PM
You know what? I am not even going to read these comments. I figure 70% of them will offend me.
One thing to keep in mind. This sentence above:
Voters are implored not to support abortion-rights political candidates but also advised that views on abortion should not be the sole factor.
is NOT a quote. I am always leery of reporters who tell me what a bishop said without quotes. So take that one with a grain of salt. Context matters too.
In my view, in my faith, it is wrong to vote for a pro-choice candidate. Always. It’s not that it is the only issue, it’s just such a grave one. Which is what will make a Rudy/Hillary matchup so difficult for all of us that feel that way.
Rightwingsparkle on November 15, 2007 at 6:51 PM
I strongly agree, and I am a Christian.
It appears that many well-meaning, good-intentioned religious leaders of all stripes confuse, then conflate the roles and functions that God ordains for government with those different roles that God ordains separately for the church.
The Bible never intends for Church and State to mix. They are separate domains, with different roles and functions.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 6:52 PM
I agree totally. Just to make it clear … my problems with the Pope and the position of the Church are with the amnesty/open border issues.
Gregor on November 15, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Yes, many people forget that the separation of Church and State works both ways. It also protects the Church from the power of the State.
terryannonline on November 15, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Your faith lacks enrichment if you rely on scripture alone. No where in the bible does it proclaim itself the only Word. Again, Christianity was practiced many, many years before the bible was written, and practiced according to tradition, and oral instruction by Jesus himself. Where was sola scriptura then? Were the first Christians lesser Christians?
It would seem they relied on Church leadership to offer direction. In relation to this topic, this document by Cardinal O’Malley is nothing new nor groundbreaking.
geckomon on November 15, 2007 at 6:57 PM
The perfected church…is that after the Pope was allowed to marry or before…If it was perfect, when was it imperfect. And what language is your bible? Hebrew or Greek, can’t be English, it wasn’t written in English. Or is Hebrew and Greek one of those original languages that you despise. That Christ, speaking in that original language, he just wasn’t “perfected”.
right2bright on November 15, 2007 at 7:00 PM
You are correct in pointing out the explosion in Bioethics that will occur in the near future.
Illegal immigration will be a “non-issue” in the future.
Transhumanism, and others, will be a live one.
Unfortunately, I fear that we, as a society, lack the moral foundation to deal properly with the explosion when it occurs. There are some who are trying to change this.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Aren’t we all missing the threat that your salvation is on the line?
I’m not Catholic, so I’ll leave it for someone who is and cares to defend that bit if they so choose. But my respect for Catholic bishops is not improving with this kind of nonsense.
TexasDan on November 15, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Not sure if the Catholic hierarchy deserves serious attention.
How did that generally universal problem with pedophile Priests wash out in the end? Did they sequester them all? No new ones in training? Or are they all shifted to new locations and told not to follow there natural inclinations? Again.
Impertinent questions for the princes of the church?
I’d have more respect if they had handled things as they should have, their general behavior was almost complicit. I’ve seen no obvious change in policy. Just appeals for funds to pay off victims and lawyers.
BL@KBIRD on November 15, 2007 at 7:04 PM
do you havc a clue? limbo was never NEVER dogma or evcn doctrine
tizzidale on November 15, 2007 at 7:06 PM
I will not directly respond to your points, as a courtesy to Allahpundit’s earlier request.
But I have read and considered your points.
Thank you for responding though. Maybe in the future we can discuss this issue, but not now.
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Limbo was never dogma, the rule about meat on friday still exists.
Just another Catholic who doesn’t know anything, giving those of us who paid attention in church a bad name.
tlynch001 on November 15, 2007 at 7:09 PM
I think that rule still exists at least in the area I live in.
terryannonline on November 15, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Not at all. Using your religious morality to educate and persuade others is a positive thing. Priests who use their anointed position to foretell divine retribution for a political policy is another.
I think the Catholic Church speak persuasively on the importance of human dignity and the value of all human life. I find the fact that it cuts across both party platforms interesting.
dedalus on November 15, 2007 at 7:17 PM
I replied at the chance it may be off topic, but since you posted twice about sola scriptura in topic that relates to Catholic doctrine, dogma and persuasion, I felt compelled to clarify. I think this is an appropriate thread for this discussion. I don’t believe opposing viewpoints automatically define a flame war.
Catholics are one in their goal of eternal salvation, but plural on the pace of the journey. Cardinal O’Malley offers a direction that is not specifically stated in scripture, but most importantly does not contradict scripture.
geckomon on November 15, 2007 at 7:19 PM
amen
tizzidale on November 15, 2007 at 7:26 PM
ColtsFan, thanks for the link. Lots of stuff to chew on over there! I don’t really care what the pope or the Catholic church says one way or the other, but it is something we are all going to have to face very soon.
HeIsSailing on November 15, 2007 at 7:27 PM
You better pray that Sister Mary (pray-for-all-the-infants-in-limbo) Margaret doesn’t read HotAir!
NightmareOnKStreet on November 15, 2007 at 7:30 PM
I have not visited your site in awhile.
What concerns do you have about the Bioethics future?
After visiting your site again, I thought you might be of a particular worldview or persuasion that would be more hospitable to some future Bioethics aspects?
ColtsFan on November 15, 2007 at 7:33 PM
You know why.
MB4 on November 15, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Here it’s only prohibited on Good Friday. Leave it to us Catholics to “regionalize” religion! You illustrate the point I made in my first post about man-made rules vs God-made rules. I only concern myself with the latter.
NightmareOnKStreet on November 15, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Catholicism does not mean that you take orders from the Catholic church.
According to Catholicism, the Catholic church was uniquely designated by God to maintain the sacraments and promote Jesus’ message, but it was never given the power to order Catholic laypeople around.
sandberg on November 15, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Respectfully, that’s not true. Codex Siniaticus, was a nearly fully complete compilation of the NT. It contained all four gospels, the epistles of st. Paul, along with other books. This codex was written in the second century A.D., this date we have acquired by the same carbon dating that is widely used in many disciplines. During this time there was no Roman Catholic Church. There was a church at Rome, but it and its bishop held no more supremacy than the bishop of Alexandria, of the Bishop of Antioch, or the Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. Scholars hold the rise of the papacy to be around the fifth century. By that time, that which was determined to be a part of cannon, was already determined. In fact we have large fragments of papyri manuscripts that date within 70 years after Christ’s death. These fragments include whole chapters of the Gospel of John and others. These fragments, not the originals, were being copied and circulated within one century after Christ’s death, which would indicate that their authoritative status was already recognized at a very early date. The NT texts were not compiled behind the closed doors of the Vatican. It was done out in the open, from bottom-up, and had the approval of all the Churches in the Levant.
Weight of Glory on November 15, 2007 at 7:46 PM
BALTIMORE – Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates “borders on scandal.”
In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O’Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.
“I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church’s position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues,” O’Malley said.
Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O’Malley said, “I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I’m concerned.”
“However, when I challenge people about this, they say, ‘Well, bishop, we’re not supporting [abortion rights],’ ” he said. “I think there’s a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/15/omalley_draws_line_with_democrats/
bnelson44 on November 15, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Coltsfan says:
Not all atheists are rampaging social liberals!! ;-)
Seriously though, I am still considering the pros and cons of this, so I am at the point where I am just collecting data without any real assessment. I guess my biggest concern is the immediate consequence of cloning on humanity. I believe that once human cells can be clones there is no need for embryonic stem cell research – correct me if I am wrong on that. That is a huge plus since I am anti-abortion especially in parallel with the reality of embryonic stem cell research. With that, the Catholic church and I agree.
I start getting queezy when I think about what cells will be used for – and I realize I may be talking about a time long after this generation has passed away – but that is the regeneration of diseased cells. Regeneration of brain cells in Alzheimers patients, regeneration of cancer cells, etc. It all sounds glorious and wonderful on the surface, but can we as a human race really handle this? Wars are fought now for oil and resources. Will they be fought in the future for the Fountain of Youth? What will humanity do when the key to their greater health and longevity is held by a select few power brokers? How much will they be willing to give for this panacea?
Honestly, I think it is inevitable, but I just don’t know ethically what to make of it at this time.
I can’t write too much about it in this short space, but my wife and I discussed it at length last night. She is a devout Catholic, yet has no idea how the Catholic church weighs in on this issue. It is something they are going to have to deal with very soon, I fear.
Or maybe I just read too much bad science fiction. ;-)
HeIsSailing on November 15, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Actually, they don’t. I wish they would. Pope Benedict is not happy with the liberal American clergy. My own priest advertises himself as a proud member of the vast left wing conspiracy.
Try reading Fr. Jonathan Morris at FOX News. He is the priest I wish all priests were.
Connie on November 15, 2007 at 8:03 PM
What I stated and what you state are not contradictions. Yours is just a further more detailed explanation.
Let me clarify by saying this then: It was the Catholic church which defined the Bible, the Catholic Church which selected the books found in the New Testament canon and the Catholic Church which kept the integrity of the word of God intact and free of error.
geckomon on November 15, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Now that I see how you are using the word “Catholic,” I understand a little better what you meant. Thanks for the clarification.
Weight of Glory on November 15, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Not since 1966,
a$$clowntlynch. Kyrie Eleison..Taken from “A Statement Issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 18, 1966:
25. …our people are henceforth free from the obligation traditionally binding under pain of sin in what pertains to Friday abstinence,except as noted above for Lent…
26. Perhaps we should warn those who decide to keep the Friday abstinence for reasons of personal piety and special love that they must not pass judgment on those who elect to substitute other penitential observances.
Turns out YOU ARE THE ONE WHO DOESN’T KNOW ANYTHING (to quote you) and is speaking from ignorance about the church GIVING YOURSELF A BAD NAME.
NightmareOnKStreet on November 15, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »