My frustration at Mass
posted at 7:46 am on October 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yesterday evening, we attended Mass and for a moment thought we would hear actual instruction in the fundamentals of the Catholic faith. After hearing one of my favorite passages in the Gospels, the “Render unto Caesar” confrontation between Jesus as the Pharisees, our priest broached the subject of what belongs to secular government and what belongs to God in the context of elections and choices made by voters. Unfortunately, he wound up wasting a good opportunity to clarify the Catechism to those who ignore it.
The priest prefaced his remarks by noting that we have the freedom not to vote, as well as the freedom to vote. If we have the choice of two unacceptable candidates, he said, why vote for either one? This is a defensible argument, but one with which I disagree. No candidate is perfect, and some are worse than others. In his construction, we will wind up being governed or represented by one of the two candidates, and my vote would go to the one who will do less damage. To do otherwise pretends somehow that neither candidate will get elected thanks to my apathy, and that’s an irresponsible solution to a bad situation.
The homily took a better direction when he began discussing the nature of freedom. It comes from the Creator, as our founding documents recognize, and not from government, in the nature of our own individual creation. We are free from the moment of conception, and that cannot nor should not be rendered to Caesar — if we expect to remain free. That belongs to God and God alone. To vote for those who act otherwise threatens the freedom of all, but especially those who come after us. How can people vote for those who would render unto Caesar what belongs to God?
Unfortunately, even my description above is slightly more specific than the priest’s. When I mentioned abortion and the Catholic vote at the end of my NARN show on Saturday, complete with specific references to the Catechism, one caller who had planned on arguing with me over its place in doctrine changed his tune. Instead, he said that I seemed more interested in instructing Catholics on this point than the church itself — and apparently he was right. The priest didn’t need to endorse any specific candidates, but he failed to even mention the word “abortion” or take the teaching moment to instruct Catholics on what the church’s own documents calls a foundational doctrine.
Maybe that shouldn’t surprise me. The last time I heard a priest mention the Catechism during Mass, I was in short pants and people still wore “Sunday clothes” to church. It’s no wonder Catholics believe they can support abortion and still claim to vote as Catholics, or that politicians can protect abortion and run as Catholic candidates for office. Until the clergy stops trying to pander to their congregations and value inclusiveness over truth, those lessons will never be taught. I give last night’s homilist credit, though, for coming closer to that than any priest I’ve heard in decades, but he missed an opportunity to be a real leader of the flock.
Update: To answer one question from the comments, I’m not arguing to impose the Catholic Church on America as the arbiter of political candidates. I’m arguing that politicians who campaign on their membership in the Catholic Church and support abortion are stunningly ignorant of their faith at best, and hypocrites at worst — and Catholics who claim that they can support abortion and these politicians are as well. The Catholic priests in America could at least eliminate the first condition by honestly teaching their congregations what the church itself considers as doctrine on abortion, and until they do, American Catholics will continue to fall prey to pro-abortion hucksters.
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: « Previous 1 2 3
I was just as frustrated at church hearing this reading and knowing the interpretation that we were going to hear (my church is quite liberal).
So the priest would make commentary and the commentary would be interspersed with the singing of “This Little Child of Mine.” He started with quoting Jefferson and the separation of Church and State” letter he wrote to the Baptists in Danbury and the firestorm that started. We heard about the greed of Wall Street, the financial collapse, the drug bust next door, and then we focused on a baptism and a celebration of an wedding anniversary.
Clearly the message was geared to the 95% of the congregation who support Obama, and addressing the abortion issue has always been a prickly point in our pews so I understand why the message is coaxed in the way that it is. But silence on the abortion issue can be construed as implicit agreement.
FWIW, when we got to the community prayers, praying for the “most vulnerable in our society, especially the unborn” was the first prayer.
pt on October 20, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Since Vatican I, it has been clear that the Magisterium of the Church as defined by the Pope and bishops has been non-negotiable, but Americans probably don’t want Catholic lawmakers clearing their positions with the Vatican.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM
I don’t care who you are or what religion you are. If you belong to a group that espouses ideas & actions, like abortion, are WRONG, then by definition, you ascribe to these ideas. This means ALL of you-public & private.
I am not Catholic, but as a Christian, life is believed to be a precious thing from God. No self-respecting Christian who is REALLY true to that faith can EVER agree abortion is right, no matter the circumstances-unfair, inconvenient, or even from violence.This means ALL life is precious, whether it is suffering or happy.
So if you are a public servant & you are crafting any policy or legislation, you cannot in good conscience actively support anything that destroys the sanctity of life. If you do, you are sinning. So there is no way to explain it away, bcs GOD will KNOW what you have done. And he will surely judge you for it.
Badger40 on October 20, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Silence on the abortion issue is no different than silence on slavery, or the Hitler death camps. Pastors who keep silent on things like this are likely failing their congregations as well as God to whom their are responsible for the charge to guide their flock . We must pray for courage for our priests and bishops, we have a rich history of men and women in the church how were willing to become martyrs for the truth.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 1:29 PM
I don’t like the phrasing of “our” and “their” churches. If anything it is God’s churches. Beyond you are wrong that the sacrament of communion in Protestant churches is of lesser significance just because the concept of transubstantiation has been rejected. Communion is every bit as meaningful and significant in a Protestant church as it is in a Catholic church.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 1:35 PM
“Well there are LOTS of events hard to get a seat to. That doesn’t mean they’re relevant. The Catholic Church works hard to fill those seats mainly by not offending anyone to the expense of the TRUTH. They may hold certain views, but they feel the need to not over emphasize those views.”
If you truly think that the Catholic Church has been silent on the rights of the unborn or other issues, go talk to NARAL or Planned Parenthood. See if they think it’s irrelevant.
Biden, Pelosi and Kennedy are Catholics only because the Roman Catholic Church is relevant. They don’t believe any of the tenets of the religion, but they find it politically expedient to call themselves “Catholic”. If the church wasn’t relevant, they would become what they espouse – Unitarians, Wiccans, Satanists or some other such fly by night “religion”.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 1:37 PM
No its not. Not even close. BUT, this is not the website to be discussing this. Let’s stop this refighting of the 30 Years War now before it gets out of hand.
We have an election to win. Let’s unite and not emphasize differences because let’s face it, from an issues standpoint, Protestants and Catholics have infinitely more in common than either has with the secular left in America.
Sapwolf on October 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM
The fatal error here is that there are far more than two candidates running. There are 13 candidates on my sample ballot. Is the Republican or Democratic candidate really the least evil of those 13 candidates?
Why would you make your choice based solely on the issue of abortion? There are so many more important issues at stake in this election.
Mark Jaquith on October 20, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Agreed. My point is that this does not excuse catholics responsibility to vote in a way that is consistent with their faith. But it is also incumbent upon catholic politicians to act in ways that are consistent with their faith, like it is for all of us. Catholic politicians who facilitate abortion separate themselves from communion with the church. The fact that they are representing a constituency doesn’t excuse them any more than a politician voting to preserve slavery because their bigoted constituency is all for it.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 1:45 PM
So many more important issues than protecting the life of the inocent? we have come a long way baby.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Just because there was one obscure plant that was not widely used does not necessarily mean that the Holy Fathers were aware of such a plants existence..
Hence the Orthodox Church’s position on allowing the use of certain contraceptives while disallowing the use of abortifacients entirely.
I congratulate you for discovering that there was such a plant in existence two thousand years ago, but that does not mean that it was widely known and it was certainly not discussed by the Fathers of the Church. The Holy Fathers were clearly discussing abortifacients and abortifacients alone.
I encourage you to study the Holy Fathers and the early Church in the same way that you have studied ancient botany..you will clearly discover that the Orthodox Church is in fact the True Church established by Christ Himself. It is a historical fact that the Roman Cartholic Church changed the Filioque,, changed the historical role of the Papacy and SEPERATED from the True and Apostolic Church(which in turn forced the protestants to flee from the RC and their heresies leading to the current divided state of the Christianity today).
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Most Protestant churches reject transubstantiation, and also reject several infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Some politicians may choose to remain Catholic because the believe it is the Church established by Christ but struggle to reconcile Vatican teaching with legislating U.S. law. For Protestants to reject the Pope themselves but then contend that there is a subset of Papal teachings that Catholics need to adhere to seems inconsistent.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 1:53 PM
“Why would you make your choice based solely on the issue of abortion? There are so many more important issues at stake in this election.”
Disagree, but I also can’t think of a single issue that would make me want to vote for a corrupt, incompetent, unqualified, absolutely and completely worthless member of the criminal democrat party.
I couldn’t wait and already voted against democrat traitor scum, via absentee ballot.
It’s a great day in America when a man can sit at home and vote against democrats.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 1:53 PM
…missed his meds again.
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 2:03 PM
If it was “worth its weight in silver, and harvested to the point of extinction,” it was hardly “obscure.” And the early Church Fathers do make reference to the practice, not only to the prevention of abortion.
I’ll leave any discussion of the “filioque” to another day.
manwithblackhat on October 20, 2008 at 2:06 PM
I don’t see it that way. I see it as a matter of faith. If one claims to be a Catholic and if the Catholic Church holds a certain tenet of faith- One can’t be a faithful Catholic and reject what the Church holds to be a true non-negotiable part of God’s message to His people. If Pelosi wants to be for abortion, she should become a Lutheran.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Because some issues are more important than others, and the family and life are by far the most important. They are central to our existence as a species, and to our continued stature as civilized beings. They are the core of human happiness, and the reason for living. If the family is not safe, nothing else matters.
Spend 3 minutes and let this video explain it to you.
philwynk on October 20, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Okay, if you insist.
Then again, maybe I went a little overboard.
manwithblackhat on October 20, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Some leave the church, as Luther did. Others believe it is better to remain in what they see as the one true church, even if they don’t abide by every point of dogma.
Pelosi? I think she is awful and wish the GOP controlled the congress, or the senate, or the White House–or at least had 40 senators. I wish Pelosi were voted out of office, but I’ll let her work out her faith with her priest and her God in the same way I would for a Protestant or Jewish politician.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 2:20 PM
How so?
There’s nothing inconsistent in saying “If you believe Y, then A, B, and C logically follow,” even if you personally don’t find Y convincing.
philwynk on October 20, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Aren’t Lutherans against abortion too? What I don’t understand is Catholics’ absolute NEED for information from the ‘official church’ to formulate their opinion on something.
Most Catholics have traditionally been Democrats. Most pro-life people have been Republican (Protestant) since abortion became legal. Why can most Protestants be so adamantly pro-life without some approval from ‘home base’?
Again, I don’t like the idea that if people don’t do what their religion does, they should be kicked out of the church. The church is not something that people can just kick people out of. The body is the church. An individual’s relationship with God is the Church. Church is wherever Jesus is, and Jesus said He will go with me wherever I go. . . so Church is everywhere a Christian is.
I just see this same argument being held in Saudi Arabia concerning social issues. I fear these arguments held here because I am certain we will have people saying a politician isn’t being ‘Muslim enough’ eventually. Catholics generally have a narrow view of how they come across. . . and the doors they open with their own activities for other faiths.
You can be for abortion rights and be Christian. Just like you can lie and be Christian. Just like you can fornicate and be Christian.
My problem with most of these posts are the ‘holier than thou’, ‘I’m telling God on you’ type arguments that are WHOLLY TANGENTIAL to Christianity.
Judgment is God’s.
ThackerAgency on October 20, 2008 at 2:22 PM
“One of the purposes of marriage is to permit the ethical fulfillment of sexual drives, so as to avoid fornication and adultery (1 Cor. 7:1-7). Most authors, however, emphasize the sacramental nature of marriage and its place within the framework of Christian anthropology, seeing the sexual relationship of husband and wife as one aspect of the mutual growth of the couple in love and unity. This approach readily adapts itself to an ethical position that would not only permit but also enjoin sexual relationships of husband and wife for their own sake as expressions of mutual love. Such a view clearly would support the use of contraceptive practices for the purpose of spacing and limiting children so as to permit greater freedom of the couple in the expression of their mutual love“.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8076.asp
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 2:33 PM
The truth is that no matter what issue I look at, the Republicans always come ahead, even if they are not perfect.
Here is my hierarchy of issues:
1.Life: without the right to life all other rights are moot.
2.Liberty: Democrats favor a much larger role for government in peoples lives, this translates into loss of freedom.
3: Defense: A strong military and engaged war on terror.
4.Economy: I want less government intervention. Policies that support Free market and entrepreneurship instead of punishing it. Less taxes.
5. Immigration; Control the borders, Immigration policy that is compassionate but meets the needs of the USA.
6.Entitlements: Fix/eliminate them, they are not sustainable.
7. Education: Don’t care, it’s not the Federal government Business.
8. Health Care: Don’t care, it’s not the Federal government Business.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 2:36 PM
It would be inconsistent with the whole of this tradition, to promote one end (openness to human life) to the detriment of the other (unitive nature of marital act). Nothing that the Fathers write support this. Therefore, while one might construe a “loophole” for acceptance of contraception using the Church Fathers as a guide, it is a stretch to say they would support it. If anything, the evidence suggests otherwise.
manwithblackhat on October 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM
The same would apply in reverse.
manwithblackhat on October 20, 2008 at 2:39 PM
And that’s where I got on this thread this morning. The Catholic Church DOES have a position on abortion and Pelosi is clearly ignoring her faith’s doctrine. Ultimately it will be GOD, not Rome that works out Pelosi’s faithlessness. Pelosi is a hypocrite and her church is unwilling to discipline the faithless even though the Bible is full of examples where God lovingly disciplined His children.
None of this has much import in the political realm other than to point out that one should beware of those who claim to be of a certain faith but don’t ascribe to the tenets of that faith. It would be one thing if Pelosi were a protestant and in one of the liberal churches who look the other way on abortion but Pelosi claims to be a Catholic yet her votes and sponsorship of legislation are an affront to everything she claims to believe because it supports a culture of death and God’s message is about the sanctity of life.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM
There would be few U.S. Catholics if disagreement with any single point of dogma required an immediate transfer out of the Church. One would have to also assume that there was a substitute Church that was better fit. A Catholic may disagree with the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, but not want to switch to a church that differs from their belief in the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 2:44 PM
It’s simple, really. Without the right to life, all other rights are irrelevant.
Those who stand against the right to life cannot honestly favor any other “right”.
either orr on October 20, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Exactly. To interfere with the integrity of this act, which is unitive and open to life, and in which God himself participates is to destroy its quality of total self giving and sacredness. The spacing of children should not be seen as a good that supports freedom of the couple but as sometimes a necessity for reasons of responsible parenthood (and which can licitly be achieved through periodic abstinence). Children are always a blessing, not a barrier to the unity of the marriage.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Recent Popes have been very clear on contraception and the death penalty. On how many issues do we require Catholic politicians to be in line with the Vatican? What if there is a conflict between a future Vatican teaching and an issue of national security, such as invading a country, tactical nukes, or torture? I hope, in those cases, a Catholic politician prioritizes U.S. interests above Vatican teaching.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 2:58 PM
You must not have read my link to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese..
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8076.asp
Fertility control, or contraception, is the practice by which mechanical, chemical, or other means are used, either before or after a sexual act, in order to prevent fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, thus circumventing the possible consequences of the sexual act – the conception and ultimate birth of a child.
General agreement exists among Orthodox writers on the following two points:
1. since at least one of the purposes of marriage is the birth of children, a couple acts immorally when it consistently uses contraceptive methods to avoid the birth of any children, if there are not extenuating circumstances;
2. contraception is also immoral when used to encourage the practice of fornication and adultery.
Less agreement exists among Eastern Orthodox authors on the issue of contraception within marriage for the spacing of children or for the limitation of the number of children. Some authors take a negative view and count any use of contraceptive methods within or outside of marriage as immoral (Papacostas, pp. 13-18; Gabriel Dionysiatou). These authors tend to emphasize as the primary and almost exclusive purpose of marriage the birth of children and their upbringing. They tend to consider any other exercise of the sexual function as the submission of this holy act to unworthy purposes, i.e., pleasure-seeking, passion, and bodily gratification, which are held to be inappropriate for the Christian growing in spiritual perfection. These teachers hold that the only alternative is sexual abstinence in marriage, which, though difficult, is both desirable and possible through the aid of the grace of God. It must be noted also that, for these writers, abortion and contraception are closely tied together, and often little or no distinction is made between the two. Further, it is hard to discern in their writings any difference in judgment between those who use contraceptive methods so as to have no children and those who use them to space and limit the number of children.
Other Orthodox writers have challenged this view by seriously questioning the Orthodoxy of the exclusive and all-controlling role of the procreative purpose of marriage (Zaphiris; Constantelos, 1975). Some note the inconsistency of the advocacy of sexual continence in marriage with the SCRIPTURAL teaching that one of the purposes of marriage is to permit the ethical fulfillment of sexual drives, so as to avoid fornication and adultery (1 Cor. 7:1-7). Most authors, however, emphasize the sacramental nature of marriage and its place within the framework of Christian anthropology, seeing the sexual relationship of husband and wife as one aspect of the mutual growth of the couple in love and unity. This approach readily adapts itself to an ethical position that would not only permit but also enjoin sexual relationships of husband and wife for their own sake as expressions of mutual love. Such a view clearly would support the use of contraceptive practices for the purpose of spacing and limiting children so as to permit greater freedom of the couple in the expression of their mutual love.
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Morissey is correct about abortion and Catholic politicians, and certainly that trumps just about any other issue because of the casualties so far: 40 million children dead and rising since Roe.
I’m guessing from previous posts, though, that Morissey would not appreciate being told where to stick his Catholic moralizing by a priest who toes the Church’s line on artifical contraception and porn as well as abortion. The same thing can be said about bloggers as about politicians: nominally Catholic bloggers who support artificial contraception and pornography are “stunningly ignorant of their faith at best, and hypocrites at worst”.
Gaunilon on October 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM
No, and your subsequent text is inconclusive. The premise here is the position of the Church Fathers in what is generally agreed (by East and West) to be the patristic era. The speculation of contemporary writers, inasmuch as they depart from the earlier tradition, trumps your contention by your own definition.
manwithblackhat on October 20, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Maybe American Catholicism is now inclusive of Abortion? I would wager that while the Church teaches it as wrong, most Catholics in the US don’t really care what the Church says they should do, as most of what they tell people to do conflicts with what people want to do.
I do realize that is the point, of course. Catholics have made a business model of telling people they are sinners from birth. How much could one more sin (abortion) matter, especially when one doesn’t even commit it?
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Not necessarily. It does not depart from Tradition but expounds upon it.
My contention is that it is:
A. allowed in certain situations, in keeping with both Holy Scripture AND Church Fathers.
B. That Roman Catholics who disagree with the RC Church on contraception(and much more important issues such as the heresies of “purgatory” and the Filioque) should come home to the True Apostolic Church of Christ…The Orthodox Church.
I’m sure that even most Roman Catholics would agree that the Roman Catholic Church is in heresy on about a half a dozen issues..
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Ed, I have to say that several of our local priests, in the People’s Republic of California no less, have been hammering away on the issues of life and of course marriage from the pulpit and in the bulletin. With Props. 4 and 8 on the ballot we’ve got plenty to talk about. Calls for fasting, prayer, and penance for this election. Gobs from the Bishops’ document “Faithful Citizenship” and a bunch from Archbishop Chaput and now Bishop Farrell of Dallas. Now, it’s not in every parish to be sure, but in several. On another note, one of the inspirational points of this election season (though few and far between) is to see so many Christians of different denominations as well as Orthodox Jews, Mulsims, and people of other faiths actually joining together to push the marriage ammendment.
e tan e epi tan on October 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Where to the Church Fathers even begin to suggest this “exception”? If something that previously IS, suddenly ISN’T, with no further explanation as to HOW you got from one state to another, that is not expounding, that is departing.
And since “B” is contingent upon “A”, you don’t make much of a case for “B”.
manwithblackhat on October 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Sapwolf, Trainwife(my husband’s a railroader too),
11 years ago, between marriages, I took the permanent as far as birth control goes.
When my son was born I was one sick puppy-both physically and emotionally. I also had the maternal instinct of a gnat at the time.
When I remarried I was only 32 but my husband was 43.
We considered trying surgery or in-vitro..
In the end we realized how lucky we were just to have Alex.
My ex is #3 of 4, my husband-#1 of 5.
Do I sometimes regret taking the “cure” at 27?
All the time-while at the same time realizing that with the way I was then, it WAS the right decision.
The more I learn of catholicism-the more I long to be to be reconciled to Her.
I’m solidly anti-abortion/ same-sex marriage etc.
If I was making the decsion now I probably wouldn’t get a tubal…but then again people change a lot in 11 years.
annoyinglittletwerp on October 20, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Christ spoke out against divorce and remarriage. Stopping gay people from marrying wouldn’t seem to help Christian marriages to endure or strengthen.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 3:56 PM
None of them, politicians Catholic or not, get their direction from the American public, not the Pope. There’s enough papist conspiracy nonsense going on these days for an entire series of Dan Brown stories.
What I expect, however, is for the politician who claims to be Catholic to be able to demonstrate how their positions on the issues from a faith-based consideration- as opposed to the old “personal faith” not to interfere with the voters crap (because that is exactly what that excuse is- crap). If Nancy Pelosi wants to kill off unborn life, let’s hear how her voting record reconciles with her faith. She represents the most Godless city in the nation if not the world. If, in the midst of being the modern-day Sodom’s representative to Congress she wants to claim to be a Catholic she needs to explain how abortion, homosexual advocacy, and all the other anti-Biblical actions of her consituents reconcile with her supposedly pious religious views.
Fact of the matter is that I think all politicians of all faiths should be more open in talking about their faith and how it plays into their decisions.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 4:03 PM
I pray you come back home.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 4:04 PM
St. Paul (who holds even more weight than the Church Fathers) does in his letter to the Corinthians regarding the role of sex in marriage(i.e. sex is not just for procreation but also for pleasure between a married couple and also to avoid fornication etc.)
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 4:05 PM
The Bible is clear. There is nothing of God in homosexuality and men who engage in homosexual relations are beyond all hope redemption. Gays who don’t turn away from their abhorrent behavior are beyond God’s saving grace. Legitimizing homosexuality by officially sanctioning unGodly behavior would be a sin.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 4:07 PM
St. Paul (who holds even more weight than the Church Fathers) does in his letter to the Corinthians regarding the role of sex in marriage(i.e. sex is not just for procreation but also for pleasure between a married couple and also to avoid fornication etc.)
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 4:05 PM
How does this in any way contradict the teaching of Humane Vitae, Familiaris Consortio, etc.?
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Again, the pleasure derived from the marital act does not hinge on the use of contraception, nor does St Paul suggest that it does. If anything, elsewhere in his epistles, he warns against the use of such medications (”pharmikopia” in Greek).
What he said.
manwithblackhat on October 20, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I agree with that point and that Pelosi is a cheap hypocrite. Mario Cuomo was more fluent and thoughtful on the relationship between faith and public service. One might disagree with Cuomo but he has thought deeply about the law and his Catholic faith.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM
As is remarriage after divorce, according to Christ and Saint Paul.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM
SaintOlaf,
Will you kindly shut the hell up? Look, I get it: you’re Orthodox (Greek? Russian? East-Bublestanian? Who frigging cares). I think that anyone who is a faithful adherent of their religion believes it to be the one, true Church. I’m sure East Latvian Orthodox Pentacostals believe theirs to be the one, true way. Fine.
What I don’t need to hear is you constantly bashing Catholicism. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. But just because you think that repeating over and over and over that your little Church is the REAL TRUE church doesn’t make it so. I don’t have to go on about how the Orthodox Church all sprouted from a bunch of power-hungry, politically appointed bishops in the 11th and 12th centuries. I don’t have to go there, and I’m sure you don’t want to hear it either. So just cut the crap.
Besides, I think the Catholic Church is the real church.
However, I don’t give a crap if someone who’s a Protestant or Baptist disagrees. I don’t even care if you disagree. But if you want to have a theological debate, then please find another blog. This blog isn’t the place to talk about crap like that. Go back to your Orthodox Catholic-bashing blogs if you want to preach to the choir. You’re not getting any points here.
Sydney Carton on October 20, 2008 at 4:23 PM
We have an opening at mine for a contrarian view.
manwithblackhat on October 20, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Drudge has an example of a Catholic Bishop speaking truth to power:
DENVER (AP) – Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput labeled Barack Obama the “most committed” abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years while accusing a Catholic Obama ally and other Democratic-friendly Catholic groups of doing a “disservice to the church.”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93T8BR80&show_article=1
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Nice.
darii on October 20, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Chaput has a book out called “Render Unto Caesar,” that expounds on civic responsibility as it relates to Catholicism. Click here to learn more.
manwithblackhat on October 20, 2008 at 4:46 PM
I have noticed that not only Obama in his adds, but sever “catholic” witters have been going through incredible contortions to try to make the idiotic argument that Obama is in effect the pro-life candidate. Unfortunately there a lot of ignorant “catholics” that buy it.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 5:18 PM
davidk on October 20, 2008 at 5:53 PM
“Those who stand against the right to life cannot honestly favor any other “right”.’
Really? So I can’t be for the right of free speech without being pro-life? I can’t be for the right of free voting without being pro-life? I can’t be for the right of free exercise of religion wihout being pro-life?
What sort of stupidity is that, esther?
jim m on October 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM
1.Life: without the right to life all other rights are moot.
neuquenguy
Why? No one’s talking about killing you and your family. Yet.
jim m on October 20, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Some of us care about more than our pocketbooks. I wonder how many people in 1939 were more concerned with the economy or healthcare than with what Hitler was doing in the death camps.
In case you didn’t get it, I am talking about the murder of millions of babies in this country. For me, that is the number one issue.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 6:58 PM
I haven’t read the whole thread, so I apologize if all this has already been said.
Actually, the politicians, and those who advertise they are voting for Obama are heretics at worst, as they don’t even pretend to believe what the church teaches.
At any rate, I had a similar experience at a local parish where the priest was presenting a class on the USCCB’s document, ‘Faithful Citizenship”. Four weeks I went to this and it was basically a waste of time. He was asked point blank, what would be a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? He wouldn’t give a clear answer; he just kept repeating that other grave moral issues include racism, terrorism, torture, healthcare… It was infuriating. I wish I had been able to read Bishop Vasa’s (of Baker Oregon) comments, that there is none in this election. I suppose I need to forward that to the priest. Of course, I really shouldn’t need to instruct a priest on this, but that is what some of our seminaries seem to be putting out these days.
Some of those voting might just be ignorant, but it doesn’t take a lot of work to learn the Church’s position. I have little patience with Catholics who willfully chose to ignore the obvious. However, I suppose if you have priests who never present the Truth and who are little more than sociologists, and liberal ones at that, as opposed to shepherds, and nothing is ever done to correct the Ted Kennedy’s of the world, people can be confused. That’s why this is all a scandal. It is leading people astray, and many of the priests and bishops have this on their heads, or worse, their souls.
Hell is paved with the skulls of priests. –St. John Chrysostom.
You would think that would scare them into doing their jobs, if nothing else encourages them to do so. Sometimes I wonder if some of them even believe in Hell. I pray for them.
pannw on October 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM
“Life: without the right to life all other rights are moot.”
So, without a total ban on abortion, our rights to vote, free speech, free religion, to own property, to marry, to raise our family as we see fit, to be employed, etc. are of little or no practical value?
Defend your statement, neuquenguy. It strikes me as teenage drama queen material.
jim m on October 20, 2008 at 7:27 PM
I’m going to start charging for doing you’re editing,Ed.
Mcguyver on October 20, 2008 at 7:44 PM
The Eucharist is the purpose of the church. To spread God’s word. And there is only one word, Jesus. The Eucharist is intimately intertwined with the Church, one cannot exist without the other. The Eucharist gives the Church it’s purpose, the Church is the conduit for the Eucharist. Can the same be said for any other? Every Mass, every devotion, every prayer, every bit of theology is geared toward the worthy reception of the Eucharist. There is no comparison.
If I were to attend a Protestant church, would I be asked to refrain from partaking in the communion service(providing I was there when one was held)? NO. Is every bit of worship designed to draw people to the communion table? NO. Is the only reason one attends church to celebrate the Liturgy of the Eucharist? NO. There is no comparison.
Thakery, you are correct, you don’t understand. Everyone forms an opinion based on knowledge received from outside sources. No one is immune to the influences around them throughout life. Catholics are not incapable of forming an opinion and acting upon it. That should be patently obvious from this thread. Faithful Catholics understand that the world is a complex place, that issues we face are easily muddled with opinions from a variety of sources. That is why we voluntarily turn to the ancient wisdom of her teachers and form our conscience accordingly. The truth sets us free. We don’t have to agonize or “spin” to know what the right thing to do is or how to behave as a Catholic. This is a freely chosen association.
What Ed writes about here is his utter disappointment and disgust that the very men who have taken a vow to lead us on our Christian path, the very men who should have as their most important mission, the preaching of the truth, who are responsible for the souls to which they minister, will not stand up for the truthful teachings of the Church.
Father Corapi has often said he will not go to hell for us. He proclaims the truth. One is free to listen and heed or listen and ignore, but one is assured of hearing the truth of the church’s teachings.
When good and evil compromise, evil always wins.
Jvette on October 20, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Have you not noticed the slow erosion of each of the rights you equate with the right to life? When a society has determined that some have a greater right to life than others, it is not a far jump to then determine that some have a greater right to all civil rights than others, and that any and all rights are contingent on the whim of the state and subject to its greater good than to that of the individual.
You seem to feel the right to life is inconsequential compared to your right to vote, raise a family, practice religion and free speech. Could that be because you have already been granted the right to life?
There’s a reason that the first two commandments following those regarding God and worship of him are about mothers and fathers and life. Honor thy mother and father, parents are important. Thou shall not murder. Life is important. The rest are the ones which lay out the way we are to treat each other once life has been secured.
For that same reason, life is the first in the list of rights enumerated by our founding document.
Jvette on October 20, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Gotta run and most likely won’t be back on tonight. I have a sick kid. Went to the doctor earlier and came home for a nice nap. Alas, she is now awake and wants her mommy. ‘Night all:)
Jvette on October 20, 2008 at 8:06 PM
It’s but a tiny step from accepting the killing of unborn life is an inalienable right to the decision that Grandma’s best years are past so it is time to put her down “for her own good.”
The only thing I can’t understand why the pro-murder crowd insists on the doing the act before birth. Surely, the same crowd that sees nothing wrong with killing a fetus viable outside the womb can see the value in giving the new parents an obligation free 90-day trial offer before deciding if the child is a “keeper” or not.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 8:14 PM
The bishops of Dallas and Ft. Worth issues a pastoral letter that they ordered read from the pulpit in every church in the two dioceses about forming consciouses re voting and intrinsic evils which would disqualify a particular candidate from consideration. When it was read in my parish this weekend, both our pastor and the guest presider focused about 80% of the homily on the intrinsic evil of abortion.
Of course, when the Dallas Morning News did the write up about the letter last weekend when it started circulating, they found every liberal Catholic who got pissed and walked out of their particular parish in the middle of Mass to interview for the article who sniffed about how the Catholic Church was endorsing one candidate over the other and that was a violation of the Church’s tax-exempt status. Funny, I don’t recall hearing a single candidate’s name mentioned once during any of the three Masses I attended this weekend.
Alia on October 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM
God bless, Jvette.
I’m praying for your daughter to get well soon.
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Catholicism is very clear cut…the communist infiltration into the seminary as documented years ago has obviously paid off… as it has into the media and so called higher education…Sherman’s simple trick of attacking from the rear has finally reached us all…time to wake up and fight back…
DCJeff on October 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Sorry, Jvette and high hopes. If you really think what you said, you have severe mental problems.
jim m on October 21, 2008 at 9:15 AM
You should have come to Mass at my church this past Sunday. Our Priest made available “Say No to Proposal 2″ yard signs to any parishioner who wanted one. (Embryonic Stem Cell Research) ( http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/michigan-ballot-for-2008-proposal-2-stem-cell-research/ )
Candy Slice on October 21, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I believe you, Ed. I encourage you to have a look at the websites below when you get a chance. These folks live in the UK. There are a couple small things we differ on, but no two people agree on everything anyways. The most important thing is that they are true Bible-believing Christians who are preaching the Gospel:
“My conversion from a practising Catholic to a Bible Believing Christian is primarily down to the change that I witnessed in my father’s life. One day I heard him listening to an old time American preacher. I remember saying to him: “Why are you listening to this? You’re a Catholic and we’re good people.” He responded by saying to me: “It isn’t enough for me now. I need something else. And I am not a good person.” Now, I must say that for a person who went to church every day, was on most church committees and had even penned a book about our church (which sold very well), this amazed me. This was to be a major turning point for my father and little did I know, for me too.”
http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com
http://www.youtube.com/excatholics
apacalyps on October 21, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3