Video: Bishop Finn says “give consideration to your eternal salvation”
posted at 2:12 pm on November 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
I don’t think Bishop Robert Finn thinks “Hope and Change” provides an effective substitute for Catholic teachings. In an interview with Kansas City’s Chris Stigall today, the bishop makes it clear that Catholics who vote for a radically pro-abortion candidate risk formal cooperation in an excommunicating act:
I would say, “Give consideration to your eternal salvation.” Because to vote for a person who has expressed a fanatical determination to not only support abortion as it exists now but to remove all limitations on it through the Freedom of Choice Act, and to extend it without any recourse, throwing out all of the efforts of citizens over the last 35 years to place reasonable limits on abortion, that voting for a person who has expressed his determination to do this to Planned Parenthood, to NARAL — that you make yourself a participant in the act of abortion. That’s gravely wrong, and you mustn’t do it because your eternal salvation is tied up in that important choice.
Bishop Finn references paragraphs 2274 and 2322 of the Catechism, which plainly sets abortion above most other offenses. Finn warns against formal participation in abortion, this time by enabling the government to dismantle the meager restrictions in place in some states to limit abortion on demand. The term “participant” is no accident; a participant in abortion becomes excommunicated latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense.”
Finn reminds the faithful that their actions have consequences. Perhaps that message will be heard, although the relative silence from the pulpit over the last few months may have deafened some Catholics already.
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
Actually, I don’t think I really started until I saw Palin with Trig.
Count to 10 on November 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Mankai, I don’t know anything about your “Teaching American History” citation, but here’s what the Catholic Catechism says:
“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation…” Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 819.
Dee2008 on November 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Well, there’s no accounting for taste in religion. I hope that your grandfather takes his love of his fellow Christians with him into the next world and receives mercy for holding such a ridiculous view.
worlok on November 3, 2008 at 3:29 PM
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703923.htm.
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — In a brief document, the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation reaffirmed that the Catholic Church is the one, true church, even if elements of truth can be found in separated churches and communities.
Touching an ecumenical sore point, the document said some of the separated Christian communities, such as Protestant communities, should not properly be called “churches” according to Catholic doctrine because of major differences over the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist.
The Vatican released the text July 10. Titled “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” it was signed by U.S. Cardinal William J. Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and approved by Pope Benedict XVI before publication.
……..
The Christian communities born out of the Reformation, on the other hand, do not enjoy apostolic succession — the unbroken succession of bishops going back to St. Peter — and therefore “cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense,” it said.”
jim m on November 3, 2008 at 3:29 PM
You don’t have to vote for McCain if you’re a Catholic; but you cannot vote for Obama.
There is no separation issue here. If you vote for a man who believes in infanticide, you have separated yourself from your church and formal excommunication is a, well, formality. Your government has nothing to do with it.
The Catholic church is not an American institution, and the American catholic church is being cleaned out by good pope John Paul the Great and now Benedict.
First the Church kicked out gay men and cleaned up the seminaries. Now it is going after cafeteria catholics. You don’t get to belong to our church if you have sex with boys or kill babies. Seems clear to me.
bonnie_ on November 3, 2008 at 3:30 PM
…which really only underscores the absurdity of uphimizing “abortion” out of both sides of the argument. Would re-naming it “pro-not-killing-those-proven-to-be-innocent” make you feel better?
Count to 10 on November 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Couldn’t the Church find a way to somehow figure out who’s voted for Obama and then officially excommunicate them from the Church? I know voting booths are private, but if you see a parishioner who is wearing an Obama sticker or has an Obama bumper sticker on their vehicles or a lawn sign then you can be reasonably be sure that they have voted for him. If they actually tell you they voted for him the church can have an affadavit of some sort that can be filled out. Once their names have been reported to the Bishop of their Archdiocese they can begin the formal excommunication process. Doesn’t seem that hard to me.
Aitch on November 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM
True. I used to support the death penalty. Now I see it as something that is a waste of money, since it costs more to kill a guy, and frankly putting someone in a cage for life until they die naturally is a far worse punishment IMO. I guess it’s a bonus for me that I can say that I am pro life across the board – well, at least when it doesn’t involve OBL or his ilk. I do believe in just war, so I can’t be totally clean. To be totally clean you would have to be a 100% pacifist or only OK war as a self defense thing – as in we were attacked first. Nuance.
worlok on November 3, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Ah, McCarthyism in Church. Not. Let’s not go there.
worlok on November 3, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Wow, I went back to the future on THAT one. LOL.
worlok on November 3, 2008 at 3:35 PM
It’s about time. I hope not just Catholics but the Jews who are overwhelmingly voting for Obama. Are you crazy? You want someone who have deep admiration for anti-semites.
mariloubaker on November 3, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Dee2008. first, I realize that Vat 2 and the catechism teach salvation for Muslims, etc. (Chilton, with the approval of the Archbishop of Newark, has been teaching salvation for atheists for decades… and recently Rome assented) but that is a massive departure from the “infallible” and “unchanging” decrees of scores of Popes and Councils (”unless he is subject to the Roman Pontiff” etc.)… I’m leaving that bit of nuance alone.
What we are dealing with here are active Catholics. For them, the catechism WARNS that if they “willingly and knowingly” leave the Church, they cannot be saved (btw – if you know and you willingly “refuse to enter” you “cannot be saved”). So you can deny the resurrection, the Virgin birth, the deity of the Lord (as Muslims do) and still “achieve salvation” but if you “leave” the Church (while upholding ALL those doctrines) you “cannot be saved.”
That makes the threat very powerful (70 million told to “bow will and intellect” to local bishop). Imagine the control an entity can exert when one can tell 70 million “vote this way or face eternal torment!” That was what Adams feared.
mankai on November 3, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Does Hotair sort posts by the user’s local time? Confusing.
worlok on November 3, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Copying strictly from the Vatican website… the terminology used there is “kill”, as opposed to murder.
The context in Romans 13 (majority of translations) seems to be not that government that is punishing the evildoers, but more that God is the avenger. Perhaps you are referencing the “Gods Word” translation? It’s the only one I see making reference to ‘government’ on behalf of God? Hmmmm…
karmatis on November 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM
jim m… that is a HUGE departure from the “infallible” and “unchanging” doctrines of the Church… but be that as it may… it does not address the Catholic believer. He is told that he cannot leave or he “can not be saved.”
So there is no option for the Catholic voter here. If he simply chooses to “leave” he is told he “can not be saved.” If he stays in and votes (foolishly) for BO, he has excommunicated himself (and buys the same fate).
Sad that one can deny the resurrection, deny the crucifixion, deny the Virgin Birth, deny the deity of the Lord Jesus and be in a better place for salvation (vicariously through the Catholic Church) than one who affirms all that and more, yet “refuses to enter in” the Catholic Church.
So much for “you must be baptized!” Muslims and atheists get a pass… despite the clear statements of scores of Popes and Councils to the contrary.
Catholic author Peter Kreeft teaches that Mohammad was a “crypto-Christian” and he is most likely in heaven.
mankai on November 3, 2008 at 3:42 PM
The US Catholic Bishops need to come out and with one voice declare that ANY alleged Catholic who has voted YES on a pro-abortion bill has excommunicated themselves as a result of that act.
Of course, this would also include Scalia and the rest of the “Catholic” Supreme Court judges who argued in favor of the Partial Birth Abortion ban that was passed recently because that decision effectively said that all the other late-term abortion procedures are OK, as long as the abortionist doesn’t use that one specific late term procedure that they were banning.
The exact words they (Scalia and the other Catholic judges) used in the majority opinion were “The medical profession [abortionists] may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus…”. That’s an endorsement of late-term abortion – except for that one specific late-term abortion method they were banning.
The Catholic Church needs a radical cleansing and now is as good a time as any to start bringing that about.
TheMightyQuinn on November 3, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Thanks, Dee. I didn’t realize we’d have to spoon-feed this stuff to our resident Catholic-bashers.
Here’s a “cliff notes” interpretation of the effects of Vatican II, with an embedded link to the original document.
At the end of the day, I am very pleased that the Catholic Church has been much more vocal about clarifying the Church’s teaching on abortion and the potential consequences Catholics face for ignoring them; however, even absent a religious edict prohibiting abortion, I would oppose it on scientific and humanistic grounds.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Y-not on November 3, 2008 at 3:45 PM
I am not a Catholic so I can’t comment on whether you could go to hell for voting for Obama but I do know this. A vote for Obama is to wish for hell on earth.
Guardian on November 3, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Thanks, jim, I know about that already. That does not mean non-Catholics cannot achieve eternal salvation.
Y-not on November 3, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Kind of reminds you of some guy who gets life for three strikes for robbery (in Cali) while someone gets 25 years and parole for manslaughter.
worlok on November 3, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Hypocrisy? How’s that? Protecting the life of the innocent compared to someone who is NOT innocent.
christene on November 3, 2008 at 3:50 PM
This is the argument of a typical mindless pro-abort idiot.
Babies are INNOCENT and must be protected. Capital criminals are GUILTY and must be executed to bring about justice.
God is pretty clear on the matter of killing the innocent and letting the guilty live.
“And will you profane Me among My people…
killing people who should not die,
and keeping people alive who should not live…?”
Ezek. 13:19
TheMightyQuinn on November 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Despite the flawed theology of Bishop Finn’s statement, I agree with him: No Christian should even consider voting Obama.
Say “No” to the big “BO.”
Aronne on November 3, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Don’t vote for Obama……if you do……go to hell! I’ve grown weary of the abortion debate, and I’m only 28. I don’t believe I’ll ever vote for a pro-choice candidate, but no one is going to listen to this go to hell argument. Talk to your daughters, friends, and relatives. Fight for the reasoned limitations the good Bishop talks about. Go Mac Go. The Supreme Court needs you.
nick108 on November 3, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Mankai, where do you find this in the Catechism?
I did go back and see what you posted by Adams and his point is not lost on me. But short of explicitly giving us the name of the candidate to vote for, I believe all pastors owe it to their congregations to communicate church teaching and to offer guidance in interpreting election issues within that context.
Dee2008 on November 3, 2008 at 3:59 PM
BTW, it looks like Palin has automatically ex-communicated herself from the Roman Catholic Church because of her decision to change religions (commit heresy) and refuse submission to the Pope.
jim m on November 3, 2008 at 4:01 PM
As a general rule, I tend to focus more on letters from specific bishops or archbishops, rather than the USCCB as a whole. Archbishop Chaput seems to be one of the most clear in his statements regarding the teaching of the Church and is a true leader for his flock. I pray that the others in the USCCB follow his example for their own flocks, and become true leaders in faith.
karmatis on November 3, 2008 at 4:01 PM
I completely agree with you. I also think approaching this election as if it were a referendum on abortion is misguided. There are more important issues at stake. For religious leaders to come out threatening excommunication and damnation for voting one way or another is absolutely pathetic.
lexhamfox on November 3, 2008 at 4:03 PM
What is her religion? Funny, I never thought to ask. Also, if she did indeed voluntarily change religion from Catholic to something else, what do you mean she is automatically ex-communicated. That would mean she quit. I’d think excommunication would be a little redundant.
I thought you were a lawyer.
JiangxiDad on November 3, 2008 at 4:04 PM
From http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm.
Excommunication
When it comes to Catholics who are formally guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, states,
c. 1364
1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
2. If long lasting contumacy or the seriousness of scandal warrants it, other penalties can be added including dismissal from the clerical state.
This canon is saying that once a person willingly repudiates Christ, embraces a heresy, knowing it to be contrary to divine and Catholic faith, or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff (or communion with the members of the Church subject to him), by virtue of the law itself they are automatically excommunicated. No ecclesiastical act is necessary and no public notice.
However, to incur this latae sententia excommunication one must satisfy the general conditions for canonical culpability set out in the Code. For example, a person who has not been diligent (prudently weighing the issues involved) in their action is not punished.
c. 1321
1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or culpability.
2. A person who has deliberately violated a law or a precept is bound by the penalty stated in the law or that precept; unless a law or a precept provides otherwise, a person who has violated that law or that precept through a lack of necessary diligence is not punished.
3. Unless it is otherwise evident, imputability is presumed whenever an external violation has occurred.
A person who lacks the proper use of reason is likewise not punishable.
c. 1322 Persons who habitually lack the use of reason are considered incapable of an offense even if they have violated a law or a precept while appearing to be sane.
The following canon completes the list of conditions that can prevent the application of an excommunication and other ecclesiastical sanctions.
c. 1323
The following are not subject to penalties when they have violated a law or precept:
(1) a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;
(2) a person who without any fault was unaware of violating a law or precept; however, inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;
(3) a person who acted out of physical force or in virtue of a mere accident which could neither be foreseen nor prevented when foreseen;
(4) a person who acted out of grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or out of necessity or out of serious inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or verges on harm to souls;
(5) a person who for the sake of legitimate self-defense or defense of another acted against an unjust aggressor with due moderation;
(6) a person who lacked the use of reason with due regard for the prescriptions of cann. 1324, part 1, n. 2 and 1325;
(7) a person who without any fault felt that the circumstances in nn. 4 or 5 were verified.
jim m on November 3, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Palin grew up as a Catholic and changed religions in her late teens/early twenties. I think she attends an Assemblies of God church now (if not, it’s a similar church).
jim m on November 3, 2008 at 4:06 PM
I don’t know, it doesn’t say anything about salvation here. You’re extrapolating
Greenhelmet on November 3, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Excommunication assumes the individual in question was a Catholic prior to the act that invokes excommunication. Was Sarah Palin ever a Catholic?
The issue of life is a matter of great importance to all Catholics. Always and everywhere. It gains greater importance to American Catholics during elections, as Catholics are bound to uphold the teachings of the Church when selecting their civil leaders. Those who are not Catholic are free to disregard the teachings of the Church if they choose.
karmatis on November 3, 2008 at 4:12 PM
For all you believers out there, Catholic or otherwise, now would be a really good time for a novena. Mother Teresa’s Express Novena can be said in 20 minutes (some people do it over nine hours).
Just sayin’
dreadkahili on November 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM
She obviously, as a child, followed her family. If you wanted to strictly interpret, it’s her father’s fault.
I am personally well acquainted with ex Catholic apostates. My brother left the Church to join an evangelical literalist Bible type of Born Again congregation(s). I have been to their services and frankly don’t understand the draw. Not trying to insult those who are. I prefer the rich tradition and liturgy of my Roman Catholic upbringing. I can take criticism, and as a thinking analytical type do soul searching and do question doctrine. I just dislike it when I sense a Catholic basher or follower of Lorraine Boettner, which I am sure some here might fit that mold.
Just know that you are being watched and that there is a whole field of study called Catholic Apologetics which refutes that sort of Catholic bashing with fact, which Boettner and the followers of that crap never bothered to read.
worlok on November 3, 2008 at 4:14 PM
its easy to say you’re an apostle…much harder to pass the test….
2 Corinthians 12:12
The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance.
right4life on November 3, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Was JFK pro-choice? Like many issues, JFK would’ve differed from modern Democrats. In fact, there’s a pretty clear non-record from JFK or RFK on the issue of abortion. In their day, abortion was a shameful act that noone talked about. Link JFKLibrary.org
hawksruleva on November 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM
And now that we know McCarthy was correct, your point is?
rgranger on November 3, 2008 at 4:22 PM
So why then are most pro-lifers NON-CATHOLIC?! And why then are MOST pro-choice politicians Catholic? Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry. . .
I just love the arrogance from Catholics that can’t see truth through their Vatican colored glasses. To you it is impossible for you to be a non-Catholic and pro-life. . . EVEN THOUGH THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT FROM INCEPTION WAS FROM PROTESTANTS LIKE FALWELL.
It doesn’t make sense that you people are smart, and you still seem to say that only Catholics are saved, only Catholics are pro-life, and that if you are not pro-life, you can leave the Catholic Church. A MAJORITY of American Catholics are pro-choice.
If pro choice Catholics leave the Catholic Church, you will have a lot of empty buildings on sundays. The fact that you Catholics can’t see that speaks volumes of the brainwashing that your receive.
I am just glad that I don’t belong to the Catholic fraternity. I’d much rather belong to the Christian Church. I don’t need a dude in a foreign country to tell me what to think.
ThackerAgency on November 3, 2008 at 4:22 PM
First Comment from a new member. Ed, started reading your blog at CQ just before you jumped here. I applaud you and your work.
I don’t have to defend my conservative views often, being in the Army overseas, but when I do, abortion is sometimes raised as an issue…along the lines of “how can you make this a single issue decision…”
This election is not about a single issue. Obama has demonstrated over and over again that his judgement, policies, and actions are at odds with the kind of politics that I favor.
Now, on abortion, as a faithful practicing Catholic I have in the past voted for politicians known to hold pro-choice views. However, I voted in good faith because there were 1) no candidates with strong pro-choice credentials and 2) most importantly they were running for office without standing or influence in the abortion debate. Obama loses my good favor on both accounts. McCain/Palin are demonstrably more pro-life than OB/Biden even though I do not see them lurching the current legal status quo in the near future. And the president does have influence on the debate.
I already voted McCain/Palin. Doing my part.
Hold on tight. Either way it’s going to be rough.
Good night. Here’s a toast to many more comments.
ArmyLogistician on November 3, 2008 at 4:25 PM
It’s just amazing that Catholics want to kick people out of their church to go to another Christian Church THAT DOESN’T BELIEVE IN ABORTION EITHER.
It really makes no sense. Catholics seem to think that theirs is the only Christian religion that thinks abortion is murder. They seem to think that all other Christian religions are tainted with the ‘pro-choice’, but Catholics aren’t.
It is beyond shocking, but I’m pretty used to EXTRA-BIBLICAL absurdity coming from Catholics.
ThackerAgency on November 3, 2008 at 4:27 PM
As Thomas Jefferson said, I fear for my country when I reflect that God is just.
HoosierPatriot on November 3, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Just a point of clarification.
No one can “achieve” salvation. It is by faith, not by anything we can accomplish ourselves.
davidk on November 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I believe catholics think it is a matter of faith and works (sacraments)
right4life on November 3, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Thank you and your family, Soldier.
davidk on November 3, 2008 at 4:38 PM
I think you are correct. I was trying to be cordial.
davidk on November 3, 2008 at 4:39 PM
There are reformationists (Luther probably did more for the Catholic Church then most realize) that would take issue whether the Catholic Church is all that…regardless…Pelosi would be a good start.
But here is a better list. With their wishy washy doctrine.
right2bright on November 3, 2008 at 4:40 PM
The problem with many American Catholics I know is that they seem to believe you can take the ‘Cafeteria Line’ approach to the faith.
“Oh I’ll have some of this, this looks good. Oh no thanks, I don’t want any of that.”
Join the Nation of Islam and try that. Or the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or an evangelical Christian church.
“Oh I like the idea of Jesus dying on the cross for my sins, but all this stuff about him being God – nah I’ll pass on that.”
Americans have an independent spirit and the idea is fostered that even when it comes to joining oneself to a religious body or authority one can pick and choose.
This attitude makes even official Church Doctrine a lineup of food in a cafeteria with the believer as a ’shopper’ who’s going to select and reject whatever strikes his or her fancy.
This totally misses the point that ’shopping for your doctrine’ is in fact the wholesale rejection of any real religious authority.
“I’ll believe what you say when I feel like believing it and I’ll reject what you say when I feel like rejecting it.”
St. Thomas Aquinas summed up this attitude with the saying, “When you accept what you like and reject what you like it is not the Scriptures you believe, but yourself.”
While pretending to be in submission to a religious authority, many people in fact never submit. Since in the actual practice of their life they never accepted the Church (or Christ) as an authority, they have little cause for complaint if/when the Church (or Christ) rejects them.
manofaiki on November 3, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Sorry Worlok, but if there is one matter on which the CHURCH MUST be involved in the Electoral process it is Abortion.The silence from too many Bishops may have given Catholics the notion that Abortion is a negotiable issue.I’d be grateful to Bishop Finn and Archbishop Chaput for spelling out what is unacceptable to those that call themselves Catholic.
Mattmax on November 3, 2008 at 4:43 PM
I didn’t either.
“Extrapolating?” Exegites usually call it, “inductive reasoning.”
BTW, you can’t gain your salvation by anything you do; you can’t lose your salvation by anything you do.
davidk on November 3, 2008 at 4:48 PM
You speak as if I stumbled into a Mensa meeting or something when I decided to call you on your generalizations and lack of debate abilities. Comparing someone deserving of the death penalty to an unborn child being murdered is really very telling about what you are. You should go somewhere quiet and meditate on something besides what you consider to be your amazing intellect. It doesn’t exist.
AubieJon on November 3, 2008 at 4:50 PM
exegite = exegete
davidk on November 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UieDo4GoRPE
.
mikepatr on November 3, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Finally!
macummings on November 3, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Just know that you are being watched……
worlok on November 3, 2008 at 4:14 PM
And the point of watching us is what?
jim m on November 3, 2008 at 5:15 PM
God bless you Bishop Flinn.
It sure is interesting to read all the looney takes on Catholic theology by the commenters. Ernesto and JimM particularly; and the whacky excommunication bit.
Considering there are more Catholics on the planet than any other denomination, 1.6 billion or so, you would think the scholars reading Hot Air could be bothered to actually look up their issues in the Catechism before they spew out nonsense.
Now, Praise for Excellence,
Lord have mercy, that is one great reference. Quinn, I am in your debt.
The verse continues; “…lying to my people who willingly hear lies.” The perfect profile of a pro-choice Catholic.
rcl on November 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM
I couldn’t agree more. This is the perfect time to remind the followers that ROMAN Catholic means following ROME.
And Pope Benedict XVI is the perfect man for the job.
FiveWays on November 3, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Ayheists and Muslims ar for Obama; I wonder why?
tocoloro on November 3, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Amen.
rightonamerica on November 3, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Bishop Flynn is just one of many bishops (one-fourth of all American bishops) who have come out strongly on this issue. As a Catholic, I strongly support their courageous stance since it will certainly alienate some in the flock………but the Catholic Church is not, and never will be, a democracy……..and rightly so. Truth never changes. People may stray from it, but the truth itself never changes, and it is the sacred duty of the Church to preserve, teach and expound on the truth.
gocatholic on November 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I appreciate that you’re using ‘most’, rather than ‘all’.
Can you quantify the numbers of pro-life Catholics or non-Catholic?
My expectation is that the politicians who profess to be Catholic, yet espouse political positions directly counter to Catholic doctrine do so for political gain, for temporal power. To some extent, their position may come from ignorance of the true teachings of the Church, but then again, it may be willful ignorance.
To whom is it impossible for an individual to be non-Catholic and pro-life? To a Catholic? I would disagree with that statement. Catholic Doctrine is clear that being Catholic necessitates affirming life at all stages. It’s absolutely true that some of the best leaders in the pro-life movement were/are not Catholic. Being non-Catholic does not preclude one from espousing the same position as a Catholic. It’s certainly true that Church leaders have not been the leaders that the faithful needed, at points in time. The Church appears to be actively taking steps to guide the Church members in their faith, again.
“Saved” means many different things in religious contexts, and I’m not certain what context you’re referring to it as, so I’ll leave that point for now. As a Catholic, I accept the Church’s teaching that human life is sacred, from the moment of conception until natural death. That view may define me as pro-life in many peoples’ eyes. Other views held by Catholics and non-Catholics alike who identify as pro-life may limit themselves to just the abortion issue. The majority of Catholics who identify as pro-abortion are probably not educated in their faith and may not be aware of Church teaching on the subject. If they have been educated, and choose to ignore it, it is their choice. It then falls to the faithful Catholics and Church leaders to encourage better understanding of the faith. This is the re-evangelization that JPII talked about throughout his papacy. I don’t think we’ll see a mass exodus from Catholic churches, but Catholics must become stronger in their faith, and reach out to their brothers and sisters in Christ.
I’m sorry you have such a negative view of the Church. Just keep in mind that the laws of God are permanent, immutable, unchangeable. Man cannot change those rules, not even if we think we know better. Gods laws are not mans’ laws. Not event the Pope can change them.
karmatis on November 3, 2008 at 5:39 PM
While the Catechism instructions about supporting abortion are true and grave, it is just too manipulative to project this on the eve of the election as a vote that could put your eternal salvation in jeopardy.
-
Suppose President Obama is a reality — haven’t we now projected him as an agent of evil? Do we dare pay taxes for fear that some of those dollars will further the evil?
-
I expect my Church to nurture my spiritual development, to regularly challenge me to do a thorough examination of conscience, and to trust me to engage the world consistent with my Faith.
-
Since my eternal salvation is now at stake, I probably should bring my absentee ballot to Mass, and let the Bishop instruct me on the selections to make.
Mark30339 on November 3, 2008 at 5:50 PM
The Church is not ‘projecting’ this on the eve of the election. Catholics considering voting for the most pro-abortion candidate to ever run for President are getting a last reminder of what their religious authorities’ position is on this issue.
As if this wasn’t already widely known.
If you accept the Pope’s authority and the Church’s doctrine on this issue – they’re ALREADY challenging ‘(you) to do a thorough examination of (your) conscience’.
You either accept the Church Doctrine and Catechism as an authority or you do not.
If not, then the quote I made earlier applies to your situation.
When you accept what you like and reject what you don’t like, it’s not the Church, or the Pope, or the Bible you believe in but yourself.
The Catholic Church has made it crystal clear what it’s teaching is on this matter. If you can’t accept it, then you reject their authority. If you reject their authority, you have little cause for complaint when they reject you right back.
manofaiki on November 3, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Today’s Gallup Poll on why people are voting for McCain or Obama:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111715/Obamas-Support-Built-Change-McCains-Experience.aspx.
Only 3% of National Adults say it’s because of Abortion (one way or the otheer) although 5% of McCain’s supporters say its because of Abortion and 1% of Obama’s say the same.
Doesn’t this suggest that the Catholic Church failed in its message this time around?
jim m on November 3, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Big thumbs up to Bishop Finn from non-Catholic Tzetzes!
What?! How many paragraphs does that thing have?
Sheesh, to become a Jew all you have to do is learn Hebrew!
Tzetzes on November 3, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Thank you Bishop Finn.
35 years ago I became very active in the pro-life movement. About ten years later I converted to Roman Catholic. Funny, my thoughts and feelings about the movement didn’t change at all. Pro-life is truly catholic (small “c”,universal).
prophetsfather on November 3, 2008 at 8:49 PM
Can someone explain why this kind of hatred-induced bashing of Catholics is accepted, but pretty much all other forms of bigotry and hate mongering toward other specific groups is not? even here at HA?
neuquenguy on November 3, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Bishop Robert W. Finn of Missouri also said last week:
atemely on November 3, 2008 at 10:53 PM
If you had an abortion, these sites are resource filled:
http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/
http://www.priestsforlife.org/
atemely on November 3, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Bishop Serratelli: No Right to Life! No Freedom! Paterson, NJ (patersondiocese.org)
Protestant, Obama supporter, Americans United…threatened Bishop Serratelli with IRS sanction or loss of non-profit status because of the above statement.
atemely on November 3, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Where has the Catholic Church been for the past 35 years? The pope and ALL bishops need to ex-communicate anyone who supports abortion. I left the Catholic Church for just that reason, refusal to hold those accountable who murder or condone murder of helpless, unborn children because they are just that, murderers.
nelsonknows on November 4, 2008 at 4:21 AM
I am just glad that I don’t belong to the Catholic fraternity. I’d much rather belong to the Christian Church. I don’t need a dude in a foreign country to tell me what to think.
ThackerAgency
And we are happy not to have you. We have enough cafeteria Catholics, thanks.
SKYFOX on November 4, 2008 at 4:31 AM
nelsonknows on November 4, 2008
Try not to blame the church for the failure and flaws of those mortals who make up the flock. Priests and bishops are no less human than the rest of us. We expect more of them and we are often dissapointed, but human beings are bound to dissapoint. God will not. I do not like or respect our parish priest, but that may only drive me to another parish, not from the church.
SKYFOX on November 4, 2008 at 6:43 AM
You’re right on that one…what happened to the little face-to-face Rep. Pelosi was supposed to be having with her Archbishop? I didn’t see anything coming out about her having to correct the record or apologize for her efforts to persuade Catholics (and others) to support abortion by deceiving them on the Church’s anti-abortion teaching.
Blaise on November 4, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2