Catholic House Democrats prepare to send bishops 'statement of principles' on Communion vote

Fantine said:

Hannah, the bishops seem to want to use a previous Pope's stand on the subject of politicizing the Eucharist.

Dare I call that cafeteria Catholicism...choosing the stale entrees?

Click to expand...

Waiting patiently for pope Francis' stands to become 'stale entrees'.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Christianity never completely subordinated the secular to the religious but at least then there was a balance. An effort by the spiritual estate and the secular estate towards a common idea of society, a division of respective spheres of influence.

Click to expand...

I can appreciate your sentiments. I see the variations in our opinions and the expressions of them here as healthy dialogue. I don't know that either one of us is "right" or "wrong", but I do appreciate hearing your view... It takes me to a place I once was before... It's refreshing, quite frankly.

Fantine said:

Hannah, the bishops seem to want to use a previous Pope's stand on the subject of politicizing the Eucharist.

Dare I call that cafeteria Catholicism...choosing the stale entrees?

Click to expand...

Standing for life is politicizing the Eucharist?

You are always going to have those that wish to stand on their faith on this issue, and those that will allow the wiggle room for the President due to his job.

As I have said before even if this gets approved, etc (whatever the wording is here)? It doesn't mean the Bishops have to deny him - or other politicians - Communion. Will you have some that feel they must stand for life that will/might? Yes.

I googled the term cafeteria Catholicism: The term cafeteria Catholic is applied to those who assert a Catholic faith yet dissent from one or more doctrinal or moral teachings of the Catholic church or who are viewed as dissenting by those using the term.

They do have teachings on Life when it comes to this issue. As I have said before I think depending on the job there needs to be separation, but on the Bishops part? Their job is Life. I can understand their position although I may not totally agree with it. According to the definition of your term? Those ones that may not stand for life as they view it? Could be guilty of cafeteria Catholicism as well.

Grace - as you mentioned before - is accepting (doesn't mean agreement) with different POV on this issue.

Landon Caeli said:

I think if Catholics were expected to unite in an American Catholic theocracy, I'm afraid it would send a signal to other groups that they should do the same as well - such as the Muslims.

...I'm not sure America could continue on as a world leader under that model, where competing groups all fight over total control. In fact, that's why the Middle East has never progressed, because that appears to be the exact position they're in.

By judging the Middle Eastern systems of government, where all groups are in constant conflicts over total control, I would even argue that by the looks of it, it's not at all pleasing to God.

Click to expand...

Even though the Seventh Day Adventists are convinced we are headed towards a Catholic theocracy I think the chances of that are somewhere between impossibly vanishingly slim to nil. Ain't gonna happen. The chances are better that some Idaho kooks will take over in some identity cult theocracy. But that's vanishingly remote. The fear of Catholic theocracy only infects the SDA and the hard-core abortionists. It's the Handmaid's Nightmare (Tale) to the abortionists.

Thing is this isn't even about forcing any politician to change their vote. It's about giving certain politicians a chance to place being Catholic before their political party. If they really want to put their political party first, nobody at all is stopping them from joining up with the Episcopalians. There they can shout their abortions and contracept themselves out of existence and marry whoever or whatever they want. Nobody is stopping them from departing. It would be a win-win situation for them to become Episcopalians. The Catholic bishops could drop the issue and we could have peace inside a smaller Catholic Church. The Episcopalians could add to their pride. It's all good. No political coercion at all. No theocracy. And even politics as usual.

The only reason this is an issue at all is that Old Joe claims to be an ever so good Catholic. He's got a picture of himself receiving communion from the hand of pope Francis to prove it. But he's cool with the idea of snuffing babies and wants to make it even easier to do. That is incoherent for a Catholic. The bishops should actually say that is incoherent. If they have any coherence left.

HannahT said:

Standing for life is politicizing the Eucharist?

Click to expand...

Only the pro-life side can be charged and tried and convicted of weaponizing the Eucharist. That's just a political reality in our woke daze. The pro-abortion side can profane the sacrament and all that and it's par for the course, or even noble. Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' would explain it all. It's so obvious that what is happening is coming straight from the rule book.

What I actually see is the attempted subversion of Catholic teaching, the silencing of faithful bishops, and a coordinated political attack from the left on the Catholic Church. The Church is trying to maintain it's integrity in the face of rebel Catholics who want to subvert it. The prime example of that is actually Nancy Pelosi, who in the past has lectured her archbishop on when life begins and told him that she alone is the judge of whether she should take communion, all the while proclaiming what a great Catholic she is.

So "others" can define whether someone is a cafeteria Catholic?

In other words, no real definition.

I cannot find a single pro life Catholic politician on Capitol Hill or any state house. Anti-abortion is not pro life by a long shot, unless you set the bar unbelievably low.

Fantine said:

I cannot find a single pro life Catholic politician on Capitol Hill or any state house. Anti-abortion is not pro life by a long shot, unless you set the bar unbelievably low.

Click to expand...

pro-life
adjective prō-ˈlīf
Definition of pro-life
: opposed to abortion
Other Words from pro-life
pro-lifer \ (ˌ)prō-ˈlī-fər
\ noun
First Known Use of pro-life
1970, in the meaning defined above
Merriam-Webster

You were saying?........

So Merriam-Webster sets the bar unbelievably low? Doesn't mean I can't have much higher standards.

When an infant emerges from the womb, he or she has roughly 80 years of "life" to look forward to.

He or she has certain human rights. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is a good benchmark developed in a worldwide forum.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

He is the most faith-filled and moral president since Jimmy Carter ....

Click to expand...

No one who supports the murder of babies in the womb is faith filled nor moral, those people are quite opposite serving the enemy of God and man

civilwarbuff said:

pro-life
adjective prō-ˈlīf
Definition of pro-life
: opposed to abortion
Other Words from pro-life
pro-lifer \ (ˌ)prō-ˈlī-fər
\ noun
First Known Use of pro-life
1970, in the meaning defined above
Merriam-Webster

You were saying?........

Click to expand...

There certainly are no more pro-life Democrats unless you count senator Joe Manchin. They did away with the last pro-life Democrat in the house last election when they killed off Dan Lipinski. That was a major ideological purity move on their part.

Fantine said:

So Merriam-Webster sets the bar unbelievably low? Doesn't mean I can't have much higher standards.

When an infant emerges from the womb, he or she has roughly 80 years of "life" to look forward to.

He or she has certain human rights. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is a good benchmark developed in a worldwide forum.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

Click to expand...

Of course before that they are simply disposable items, right?

Fantine said:

So Merriam-Webster sets the bar unbelievably low? Doesn't mean I can't have much higher standards.

Click to expand...

It actually means you should know what words mean before attempting to use them......just sayn'...........

civilwarbuff said:

Of course before that they are simply disposable items, right?

Click to expand...

People today see human life as disposable because they see how few care about others in very demonstrable ways.

When people weep over sonogram pictures while closing our borders to refugees and unaccompanied immigrant children and shrugging their shoulders at human need, they see life devalued.

Fantine said:

People today see human life as disposable because they see how few care about others in very demonstrable ways.

When people weep over sonogram pictures while closing our borders to refugees and unaccompanied immigrant children and shrugging their shoulders at human need, they see life devalued.

Click to expand...

The devaluation has been going on in earnest since 1973 when it was decided for us that innocent human life could be legally snuffed. Why care about anyone else if being snuffed for the convenience of big people is normal. Those who won the lottery and got born look around and are aware that a third of their cohort didn’t even get to be born. How does a person feel knowing that? Perhaps the lesson learned is that life is cheap? Perhaps that their convenience is more important than the lives of others?

chevyontheriver said:

There certainly are no more pro-life Democrats unless you count senator Joe Manchin. They did away with the last pro-life Democrat in the house last election when they killed off Dan Lipinski. That was a major ideological purity move on their part.

Click to expand...

Tulsi Gabbard is pro-life. Although she doesn't seek to over turn Roe V Wade especially
in the first trimester, she still sees the sanctity of life. She also knows the impossibility
of getting abortion outlawed before viability.

However, she opposes late term abortions and came out publicly on it, which is probably why the DNC blew her off when she ran in the Democratic Primary in 2019.

I like her and would vote for her if she ran again. I'd like to see someone like her as the first
woman president.

Fantine said:

People today see human life as disposable because they see how few care about others in very demonstrable ways.

When people weep over sonogram pictures while closing our borders to refugees and unaccompanied immigrant children and shrugging their shoulders at human need, they see life devalued.

Click to expand...

But one doesn't exclude the other.

Being pro-life means from conception to the grave, regardless who they are.

The nations do have a right to protect their borders from invasion. However, no one, even
Donald Trump wasn't executing illegals as they crossed over into the US. Abortion on the other
hand, is the direct killing of a human being, no two ways about it.

JimR-OCDS said:

Tulsi Gabbard is pro-life. Although she doesn't seek to over turn Roe V Wade especially
in the first trimester, she still sees the sanctity of life. She also knows the impossibility
of getting abortion outlawed before viability.

However, she opposes late term abortions and came out publicly on it, which is probably why the DNC blew her off when she ran in the Democratic Primary in 2019.

I like her and would vote for her if she ran again. I'd like to see someone like her as the first
woman president.

Click to expand...

I’ve been following her career. Better than the rest of the Dem candidates in many ways.