|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 23rd, 2004 07:33 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Awesome find, preechr. I agree with the Archbishop, I just wish he took better steps to enumerate the other issues that divide Catholics, regarding the teachings of the Gospel. For example, if one were to deny John Kerry the Eucharist b/c he votd pro-choice, one would then be obligated to deny loud-mouthed Sean Hannity as well, since he openly endorses the war in Iraq, as well as capital punishment. Quote:
|
||||||
| Jul 21st, 2004 12:34 PM | |||||||
| Preechr |
All Catholics should unite behind universal principles By Alexander J. Brunett Special to The Times The election-year controversy over pro-choice Catholic politicians receiving Communion has become the cause for division among some Catholics and raised concerns among non-Catholics. It has raised questions about the separation of church and state, the role of faith in political decision-making and what the Catholic Church teaches regarding abortion, the sacrament of the Eucharist and participation by Catholic people in the political process. As the spiritual leader for nearly 1 million Catholics in Western Washington, I issued a statement Monday that can be read in its entirety on the Archdiocese of Seattle Web site ( www.seattlearch.org ). This statement is not in support of any candidate or political party. It is a teaching statement addressed to Roman Catholics and does not tell them how to vote. It attempts to dispel the notion, proposed by some, that the constitutional separation of church and state implies that religious leaders should not involve themselves in politics when moral principles are at stake. It reminds Catholics that if they profess to be in communion with the church, their faith values must inform their political actions and not the other way around. While affirming church teaching, which unequivocally promotes the sanctity of all human life and opposes abortion, it recognizes that we all must have choices and that those choices should be informed by a clear conscience. We do not control people by mandate or fiat. My statement instructs ministers of the Eucharist in our archdiocese that no one may be denied Communion without the opportunity for both pastoral dialogue and due process. If after such a dialogue, a Catholic recognizes that they are not in communion with the church, it seems clear that they should voluntarily withdraw from Eucharistic sharing without the need for formal action by me or the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council called the Eucharist "the source and summit of our faith." We believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and Catholics assemble around the altar in communion with one another to appropriate his life, death and resurrection. As a result, it should be clear that one who is not in communion with the Catholic Church should not be receiving Communion. Coming together to celebrate our Eucharist is a central expression of our communion with God and each other. We derive from it the strength and inspiration to live out our values in our families, in our place of work and in the public square. The debate surrounding reception of Communion by certain Catholic politicians has been especially painful, precisely because we gather for Communion not as individuals but as a community united in faith. For us, the Eucharist must never become the source of division. As political factions on both sides of this debate have tried to seize political advantage, however, non-Catholics and non-Christians have understandably worried that the lines between church and state are blurring. Some have suggested that the constitutional separation between church and state amounts to a prohibition against church leaders involving themselves in politics. This misunderstanding turns the constitutional protection on its head. The separation of church and state protects churches and their people from the imposition of a state religion. It is a guarantee of religious freedom, not a gag order on the ordained. Catholic leaders understand that many in our secular culture do not share our beliefs. We also recognize that every citizen is entitled to the full and free expression of their values. So we bring our principles into the public square and expect that others will do the same. One of the most troubling aspects of the current debate over Catholic politicians and Communion has been the suggestion by some that they can separate their faith from their political actions. This, as I have said before, is a dangerous moral delusion. Those who profess to be in communion with the Catholic Church may in good conscience arrive at different political alternatives, but they are obliged to apply its moral principles when making their decisions. Later this summer, I will join with the other Catholic bishops of Washington state to issue a statement encouraging all Catholics to participate fully in the political process. This statement will remind Catholic people that church teaching is ordered to promote the common good, not the electoral prospects of any party or candidate. It will encourage Catholic women and men to put the dignity of all human life and the needs of the poor and vulnerable ahead of personal gain, political partisanship or the narrowly defined goals of any special-interest group. Finally, this statement will call on the Catholic people to consider the teachings of our church in their totality, to analyze public-policy issues for their full social and moral dimension, and to measure all public policies and political candidates against Gospel values. While political issues may divide us during this election season, the universal principles that have guided our church for centuries unite us still. Archbishop Alexander J. Brunett is the spiritual leader of the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle, which includes all of Western Washington from the Columbia River to the Canadian border. Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company |
||||||
| Jul 16th, 2004 08:01 PM | |||||||
| O71394658 |
Quote:
Of course these are mere conjectures, but they are things to consider. |
||||||
| Jul 16th, 2004 07:34 PM | |||||||
| Preechr |
This topic's probably not familiar enough territory for me to argue with you, and I can't really find any fault with what you're saying. I more or less figured it would be impolite not to at least try to add something to the conversation you invited me to... :D I suppose I should have stated that last point better. It appears to me that Bush's Republicans are hyper-actively courting ALL Religious organizations on the grounds that they are God's Party, and that any Christian is better than a bunch of atheistic, Democrat abortionists. Maybe John Ashcroft had some Catholics in a prayer meeting, and he asked them why they support the Democrats when they allow abortion... I dunnno... The Santorum Sect is really starting to freak me out, honestly. That, I DO know. |
||||||
| Jul 16th, 2004 12:36 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
The Church has always been quite assertive, but it has maintained a quiet non-partisan approach that I PERSONALLY think is the best route in America. Quote:
I didn't want to get into a discussion about sex charges and the potency of ones faith, because I would never personally question the religious choices made by others, nor would I determine their faith to be irrelevant in any way. Quote:
Secondly, a big reason the Church had traditionally taken a more non-partisan approach was because neither major party had provided them with a solid option. Catholics (such as my wonderful mother) have flirted with the Right to Life Party, but that seems to be more so in statewide elections. Neither major party has a national platform that appeals entirely to the economically liberal/socially conservative stance of the Church. This is where my primary gripe comes in, because it seems to me that those Catholic bishops who are screaming the lidest over Kerry and abortion have lost focus of the entire platform of faith. |
||||||
| Jul 14th, 2004 04:17 PM | |||||||
| Preechr |
I found it hard to believe Mario Cuomo actually said "...we know our Christian responsibility doesn’t end with any one LAY or amendment...." in regard to abortion, but I looked it up in the speech, and it seems that's what he really said... LOL Politics is the science or art of maintaining or attaining control. With the controversy that seems to stain every action taken by the Vatican these days, especially in America, is it really any wonder the Church is becoming more politically assertive? Do you think it's feeling at least a little bit of a sense of loss of control? Link to the latest PR disaster. Not to sound disrespectful, but there have been a LOT of bad news items focusing on the Catholic Church lately... and by lately, I mean for a long time. It's hard not to see this thing with the Communion, as an outsider, as anything but a defensive or reflexive action taken to reassert it's waning moral authority (at best) or just another tragic step along the same general downward path it's been heading (at worst.) I'm not speaking from my own personal opinion here, so please don't take my comments as such. I suppose there's a good reason why the obvious has yet to be mentioned in this thread, but you cannot talk about the Catholic Church's actions any more without discussing all of the bad press it can't seem to shake and the effect that has on public opinion. I know you were posing an if...then question, but the audience is, for the most part, wondering by what right the Vatican can take ANY moral stand when it's own skeletons have been out of their closets, dancing in the streets for decades now. You seem to be discussing dinner plans when the cruise ship is sinking beneath you... though, of course, I'm not referring to anything having to do with faith... only the hierarchy of the Church. Another link, slightly relevant As for the discussion you guys were having regarding the appropriateness of the Republican courtship of the Vatican, (again,as an outsider,) it only seems to fit. The Democrats long ago positioned themselves as the secular, too- intelligent-for-faith party. Any sort of Christian is better than a free-lovin', abortion-havin', dope-smokin' Hippie. Again, this seems obvious. Perhaps your discussion here is just too nuanced for me to completely grasp... |
||||||
| Jul 14th, 2004 01:13 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
AND, as I said in the very beginning, I'm FINE with that. But where is the consistency? Where is the public outcry over the Iraq war? Granted, the same Catholic missionaries, activists, and humanitarians who ALWAYS work on these issues are still doing so. A priest and some nuns just recently got released from jail for protesting the SOA in Atlanta. They intend to go do it again. Catholics were ahead of the game in protesting the Iraq sanctions, long before the MoveOn/ANSWER crowd became hip to it. But these are a small minority of activists, and they don't necessarily reflect the sentiment of the typical American Catholic these days (which I will touch upon in responding to ABC). Quote:
Quote:
But I think you're right, with an aging pope, a confused denomination, several layers of authority here in America, it leaves the faith open to wide interpretation. Some might see this as advantageous, but it seems to me that it has created a far too autonomous Church, where people can use Catholic concepts and rules to suit their own purposes. Quote:
I see another part of the problem being the restructuring our political system has taken. With the death ofmachine politics, particularly in the urban areas, the Catholic vote has sort of become the "undeclared electorate." Granted, Irish-Catholics are no longer the lead character in a Horatio Alger story, but being working class, Irish, not rich but not poor, and CATHOLIC once served as a binding force, typically for the Democrats. But the Democratic Party, not to get into details, essentially abandoned that electorate, leaving them up for grabs. Now we're sort of like the wets or the progressives, searching around for the party that best suits our needs. |
||||||
| Jul 14th, 2004 05:42 AM | |||||||
| Abcdxxxx |
I see part of the issue being that the Catholic Church let themselves become available to lobbying itself. Their messages are less concise as infighting goes on while the Pope grows older, causing their decrees to often become contradictive on issues. With a crop of fairly liberal Christians and Catholics to contrast the fundamentalist, we're seeing a generation of politicians that pick and chose their own value system, so of course that's going to threaten the fundamentalist Christian special interest groups who have redefined themselves in the last ten years. For the real answer to your question you need to look at what's happening within the Christian community itself (and then to a lesser degree, the radical left, as it starts to embrace issues on a morality level). Increasingly it's the concept of "values" treated as it's own platform that every single candidate in an election must face. instead of a social stance on a per issue basis. You can't go into a voting booth the way my Grandparents used to, with their union card, and just check off all the Democrat sponsored candidates and initiatives, so the new version of this is to align yourself with a different club. Remember that a good amount of Religious Americans pay ties to their Church. A good deal of our social programs are tied to religious organizations, and it builds an incredible loyalty even beyond the stereotypical idea of a bible thumper voter. I'm sure from their perspective it's the opposite... that you can't look at a guy like Ted Kennedy and think "well he's a good Catholic boy, it's safe to vote for him, he'll agree with me on abortion". Even the blanket of religious fundamentalism has splintered to mean various things, which just makes these communities that much more aggressive in positioning themselves to push an agenda. The Christian community puts great energy in a whole variety of charities, but how many get them bombing buildings, and foaming at the mouth? The contradiction of their own values and actions has always existed, and just grows far more public as you see these groups "modernize". Meanwhile, politicians are equally to blame as they embrace and add credibility to moral call issues on a pick and chose basis where saving stem cells, and saving Iraqi lives are put on the same level. |
||||||
| Jul 14th, 2004 12:07 AM | |||||||
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
||||||
| Jul 13th, 2004 11:16 PM | |||||||
| O71394658 |
I would tend to disagree with your statement. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Republican Party has actively recruited members of a religious organization they despise. Saying that the Republican Party as a whole has a palpable disdain for Catholics is a little far-fetched. Catholics, or people who say they're Catholics may align themselves along party lines for several reasons. They may be attracted to the moral issues of the conservative camp, or the "Robin Hood" positions Liberals take on social welfare and other issues of the sort. Catholics who are pro-choice or pro-life may not be bound to their decisions by their religion. They may just feel that, despite what most religious people would argue, that a women does have the right to choose. The only reason that they may have drawn fire from opposite-minded Catholics would be that it would be out of line with what the Church teaches. Perhaps the Congressman isn't really that religious? Or perhaps the Congressman has purposelly disregarded his religious stance in the matter because it conflicts with the stance he believes he should take as a representative of the people. I would tend to believe that the religious influence the Church possesses over each Catholic individaul has a high variance. The fact that the issues themselves may or may not have been "pushed", is in my opinion, inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I wouldn't tend to think that Republicans are touting the moral red flag because it's an election year...I think they've always touted the moral flag over the Democrats...the only reason that such issues have come up is that those issues have been popular in recent media events, and several Congressmen have voiced their opinons on matters of public importance. Gay marriage and abortion are definitely hot-button issues within the coming election, so I would think that the Rep. Party would tow the moral line, as it always has. Your assumption that this has been done by Catholic-hating-Christians is I think merely that, an unfound assumption. |
||||||
| Jul 13th, 2004 05:28 PM | |||||||
| Brandon |
Agreed, Kevin. It's all part of the Republican party's effort to turn itself into the party of "true believers." They're attempting to rally the faithful of every stripe under their banner by kicking the "family values" rheotric into hyperdrive while simulatenously painting the Democratic party as a bastion of secularism, America-hatred, and moral relativism. They probably figured they could easily manipulate Catholics using the hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage: "BET WE CAN GET THOSE BLOOD-DRINKING MARY WORSHIPPERS TO VOTE G.O.P. IF WE PLAY THE ABORTION CARD! HAR HAR HAR!" It also bothers me that Catholicism is in danger of becoming politicized. The church, while lobbying our government at times, has always managed to maintain a respectable distance from the partisan fray - unlike certain fundamentalists Protestant sects, which have practically become branches of the Republican party. |
||||||
| Jul 13th, 2004 02:41 PM | |||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Catholicism and public policy I know that this discussion has already popped up in random threads, but I'd like to start a thread solely for it, b/c it has been bothering me as of late. Recently, Catholic Democrats have come under fire for their voting records, specifically those records that show them to be supportive of so-called pro-choice legislation. Now, I'm cool with this, I really am. It certainly isn't uncommon for the U.S. Bishops to lobby our government. However, it is my personal opinion that this push has intentionally been initiated during an election, and probably done so by non-Catholic Christians, many of whom see us as a flesh eating cult. In this regard, it seems to me that the Catholic Bishops of America have allowed themselves to become political pawns of people who in many ways represent the antithesis of Catholic teachings. Why are these officials, particularly Senator Kerry, being targeted for their pro-choice voting record? Why has the Methodist Church, which President Bush claims to be a member of, not excommunicated the man who started a war they opposed? Why have Catholics allowed themselves to be duped by Right-Wing nuts who probably despise us? The Pope denounced the war in Iraq. Where is the outrage over Catholic Democrats AND Republicans who endorsed this war...? What about Catholic Republicans who cut welfare spending, support capital punishment, etc. etc....? My point being, since Catholics comprise the largest single religious denomination in our Congress, certainly EVERY piece of legislation forces a Catholic to break with the Church's teachings. When, where, and how did the Catholic Church get marginalized into a single-issue PAC like the NRA....? Back in 1984, former NY Governor Mario Cuomo gave an adress on policy and Catholicism to the graduating class at Notre Dame. One piece is interesting here, where he says: "Abortion has a unique significance, but not a preemptive significance. Apart from the question of the efficacy of using legal weapons to make people stop having abortions, we know our Christian responsibility doesn’t end with any one lay or amendment. That it doesn’t end with abortion. Because it involves life and death, abortion will always be a central concern of Catholics. But so will nuclear weapons. And hunger and homelessness and joblessness, all the forces diminishing human life and threatening to destroy it. The “seamless garment” that Cardinal Bernardin has spoken of is a challenge to all Catholics in public office, conservatives as well as liberals." Catholics are supposed to champion many causes, and most often do. But here in America, at least on the surface, we have semingly allowed ourselves to become the pawns of those who despise us. We have essentially become Stalin's "useful idiots." WHY? Can any of the other Catholic Mockers explain this to me? Blanco? Seth? Vinth!!??? Furthermore, while it's a bit long, I strongly recommend reading the Cuomo speech. I quite enjoyed it, being a Left-leaning Catholic who considers himself pro-life and pro-choice collectively. Here's the link: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...iousbelief.htm |
||||||
