In Colorado, Vote wrong and be denied communion

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaveSZ

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2004
818
39
✟1,173.00
Faith
Deist
flesh99 said:
I am not certain, but I think the difference is that abortion has been spoken on Ex-Cathedra and the death penalty has not. I know that the war in Iraq has not been spoken on Ex-Cathedra so the stance is not doctrine. It is only for doctrinal issues that communion is being denied. It was also not only abortion mentioned by this bishop. The tossing in the death penalty (if not spoken on Ex-Cathedra) and the war in Iraq is either using a strawman argument or not having an understanding of the way things are being done. I will see if the death penalty has been spoken on Ex-Cathedra since I now have to know since I am making this argmunet...


All of those Republicans I mentioned do not support overturning roe v wade, they are all Catholics, so bringing up the war or the death penalty is a moot point.

I've said numerous times that I am personally opposed to abortion, but I'm pragmatic. Thus I look at other countries with low abortion rates (like Netherlands and Belgium) to see how they have been successful. I would favor the adoption of those nation's policies for America.

I also believe strongly that it’s wrong to use the machine of government to force your personal beliefs on a pluralistic society.

I'm going to do some soul searching for a while, and evaluate my own personal beliefs.

If the Catholic Church is intent on alienating vast swaths of its members, it's doing a great job of it.

This makes me sad because I remember how active I was in my church as a youth, and how we would volunteer to help poor people, etc.

I simply cannot vote for anyone who would support free trade agreements that promote (even celebrate) child labor and shipping US jobs overseas though.

I can't do it.
 
Upvote 0

EdmundBlackadderTheThird

Proud member of the Loud Few
Dec 14, 2003
9,022
482
51
Visit site
✟23,917.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is a vast difference is not supporting overturning Roe V Wade and declaring yourself pro-choice. You may well think that Roe V Wade shouldn't be overturned but that it can be invalidated as it is based on a non-existent right, a right that was essentially invented for the case that is mentioned not once in the costitution. However, if they are actively supporting a pro-choice position then they should by all means be denied communion. I have noted that nowhere in any of these statements does the Church use party lines, they are looking at a single issue that is a mortal issue, and actually trying to save people from themselves. Taking communion while in unrepentant sin is expressly forbidden and that is what they are enforcing. I cannot by any means find fault with that.

It is not that they want to alienate their members, their members are alienating themselves. The Church should not change doctrine to make people happy, the church should enforce doctrine no matter who it makes unhappy or uncomfortable, that is the job of the Church and the church for that matter. We are seeing more and more relativsim creep into different denominations and I am glad that it is not happening the Catholic Church or for that matter my church. The more I think about the more appealing Catholicism, well Othodoxy actually, becomes. They are strong in their beliefs and do not care about public opinion, which is as it should be.
 
Upvote 0

DaveSZ

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2004
818
39
✟1,173.00
Faith
Deist
DaveSZ said:
I also believe strongly that it’s wrong to use the machine of government to force your personal beliefs on a pluralistic society.


If you know your US history, you know that the United States Senate ratified, and President John Adams signed a treaty with Tripoli containing a rather curious declaration:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html

Fortunately for me, my son (and only child), Michael, lived for several years in Washington, DC, only two blocks from the Library of Congress, and my wife and I visited him frequently. When we did, I spent time at the L of C, much of it reading up on the treaty. I found some answers in the official Journal of the Senate. The President (by then John Adams) sent the treaty to the Senate in late May 1797. It was, according to the official record, read aloud (the whole treaty was only a page or two long), including the famous words, on the floor of the senate and copies were printed for every Senator. (It should be noted that the controversy about the Arabic version is irrelevant here: all official treaty collections from 1797 on contain the English version, and all include the famous words of Article XI.) A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification. Twenty-three Senators voted to ratify: Bingham, Bloodworth, Blount, Bradford, Brown, Cocke, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin, Paine (no, not Thomas Paine), Read, Rutherfurd, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tattnall, Tichenor, and Tracy. We should ask ourselves whether we should not consider these 23 (and President Adams) great freethought heroes. In a very public way, they voted to say that "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, . . ." the Muslims of Tripoli therefore need not fear a religious war from the U.S. The vote was recorded only because at least a fifth of the Senators present voted to require a recorded vote. This was the 339th time (I went through the Journal for the first five Congressional sessions and counted them myself) that a recorded vote was required. It was only the third time that a vote was recorded when the vote was unanimous! (The next time was to honor George Washington.)There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty.

President Adams signed the treaty and proclaimed it to the nation on 10 June 1797. His statement on it was a bit unusual: "Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."

What happened then? Did our heroes pay a heavy price? Skeptical that the public even knew about the treaty, I went to the periodicals reading room of the Library of Congress in, appropriately enough, the Madison Building. After some poking about I found out how to get access to newspapers of the 1790s, mostly on microfilm, but in a few cases I saw the actual papers of the day.

I found the treaty and Adams' statement reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City and, in one case, held the actual newspaper (the Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser for Saturday, 17 June 1797) in my hands. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

And what of our heroes? Well, none suffered any known negative consequences, and I've read biographies of each. One Senator, Theodore Sedgewick of Massachusetts, went on to become the Speaker of the House (imagine Newt Gingrich endorsing such a treaty! Henry Clay is the only other American in history to be first a Senator, then Speaker). Another, Isaac Tichenor, became Governor of Vermont, and then returned to the Senate for many years. Georgia's Senator, Josiah Tattnall (Georgia's other Senator was absent), did not return to the Senate, but he did serve thereafter as one of the youngest Governors in Georgia's history, and has a county in Georgia and a number of streets, squares, etc., named after him. (His father was a Tory; his son by the same name was a famous officer in the Confederate Navy.)

From our perspective these men may be heroes, but in truth the vote they cast was ordinary, routine, normal. It was, in other words, quite well accepted, only a few years after first the Constitution and then the First Amendment were ratified, that "the Government of the United States of America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." After a bloody and costly civil war and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment determined that citizens of the United States cannot have their rights abridged by state or local governments either, religious liberty for all was established. Governmental neutrality in matters of religion remains the enduring basis for that liberty.


This is why it's troubling to me to see a Catholic Bishop, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or anyone of any particular religion, advocating the infusion of theocratic principles into government.

We only need take note of the inevitably oppressive nature of a theocratic government abroad to properly gauge the consequences of installing one here.

The Founders of our country had only escaped that same oppression years earlier, and thus knew the true cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tulc
Upvote 0

kdet

God lives in us
Jul 12, 2003
7,541
256
61
TX
Visit site
✟16,807.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
flesh99 said:
There is a vast difference is not supporting overturning Roe V Wade and declaring yourself pro-choice. You may well think that Roe V Wade shouldn't be overturned but that it can be invalidated as it is based on a non-existent right, a right that was essentially invented for the case that is mentioned not once in the costitution. However, if they are actively supporting a pro-choice position then they should by all means be denied communion. I have noted that nowhere in any of these statements does the Church use party lines, they are looking at a single issue that is a mortal issue, and actually trying to save people from themselves. Taking communion while in unrepentant sin is expressly forbidden and that is what they are enforcing. I cannot by any means find fault with that.

It is not that they want to alienate their members, their members are alienating themselves. The Church should not change doctrine to make people happy, the church should enforce doctrine no matter who it makes unhappy or uncomfortable, that is the job of the Church and the church for that matter. We are seeing more and more relativsim creep into different denominations and I am glad that it is not happening the Catholic Church or for that matter my church. The more I think about the more appealing Catholicism, well Othodoxy actually, becomes. They are strong in their beliefs and do not care about public opinion, which is as it should be.
Amen, Flesh99! The Bible says we are not to conform to this world.
 
Upvote 0

DaveSZ

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2004
818
39
✟1,173.00
Faith
Deist
flesh99 said:
There is a vast difference is not supporting overturning Roe V Wade and declaring yourself pro-choice. You may well think that Roe V Wade shouldn't be overturned but that it can be invalidated as it is based on a non-existent right, a right that was essentially invented for the case that is mentioned not once in the costitution. However, if they are actively supporting a pro-choice position then they should by all means be denied communion. I have noted that nowhere in any of these statements does the Church use party lines, they are looking at a single issue that is a mortal issue, and actually trying to save people from themselves. Taking communion while in unrepentant sin is expressly forbidden and that is what they are enforcing. I cannot by any means find fault with that.

It is not that they want to alienate their members, their members are alienating themselves. The Church should not change doctrine to make people happy, the church should enforce doctrine no matter who it makes unhappy or uncomfortable, that is the job of the Church and the church for that matter. We are seeing more and more relativsim creep into different denominations and I am glad that it is not happening the Catholic Church or for that matter my church. The more I think about the more appealing Catholicism, well Othodoxy actually, becomes. They are strong in their beliefs and do not care about public opinion, which is as it should be.


Well as long as you support denying the Eucharist to right wing politicians who are "pro choice," then your position is logically consistent.

Unfortunately, the rhetoric from this particular Colorado Bishop does not share that same consistency.

I might be against abortion, but I also oppose child slave labor, favor environmental protection, favor a non-theocratic government, favor insuring the poor for healthcare, etc.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I might be against abortion, but I also oppose child slave labor, favor environmental protection, favor a non-theocratic government, favor insuring the poor for healthcare, etc.
Well said. Being pro-life means a lot more then voting Republican.
tulc(struggles with issues of communion) :sorry:
 
Upvote 0

neocon

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2004
1,196
51
✟1,624.00
Faith
Christian
Polycarp1 said:
On the other hand, neocon, and with absolutely no personal attack intended, in what way are you different from the people you condemn in that quote? Your stance in a number of threads on hotly debated political issues has been contrary to the teachings of a number of Church leaders on what Christ expects of us -- ...............................


You are going to need to come up with some LINKs and perhaps define just EXACTLY what you think a Church Leader is. A more or less Conservative Politics is what the Word teaches. It is Statist Liberalism that finds little if any support in the Bible.


Person A Loving person B in a Biblical manner does NOT mean getting together with C, D, & E to decide how much of F's property should be confiscated by the State to cover the Costs of A's desire to 'help'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crystalpc
Upvote 0

burrow_owl

Senior Contributor
Aug 17, 2003
8,561
381
47
Visit site
✟25,726.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
DaveSZ said:
] Well as long as you support denying the Eucharist to right wing politicians who are "pro choice," then your position is logically consistent.
Yup. The coach of the Denver Broncos was personally appointed by Bishop Sheridan to a church committee, and he's given funds to candidates that support stem-cell research. Since I'm sure Sheridan is fully consistent with himself, he'll either demand that this high profile member of his church either stop his support of stem-cell research or deny him communion.
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,036
1,674
57
Tallahassee
✟46,060.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
tulc said:
Christi, grizzly am I going to have to separate you two! :mad:
Now both of you kiss and make up! :hug:
tulc(who's got a switch if he needs it!)
But tulc - I really felt we were getting somewhere :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
flesh99 said:
It's just you. The Catholic church is standing up for their beliefs and I for one appluad them for it. They hold some things very close to the heart and communion is one of them. Scripture admonishes us not to take communion in the wrong frame of mind. Those who support these sins being legal, whether by votes or in office, should pay the consequences of their actions. My respect for the Catholic Church grows every time another diocese take this sort of stand, they may convert me yet!
Two points:

1: How are the churches going to find out who their members voted for? It's a secret ballot for a good reason.

Will there be a questionnaire at the beginning of each mass? "Now, by a show of hands, who voted democrat? Ok, you people, please leave."

Or will the priest ask each member individually as they come up to him, communion wafer in his hand, asking, "So, who did you vote for?"

Either way, would lying to the priest be considered a mortal sin?

Second, I disagree with these tactics, considering them spiritual blackmail, but if we're going to applaud the church for taking a stand, then I'll also applaud those catholics who take a stand... and walk out of the church.

This won't last long, depending on how bare the collection baskets get.
 
Upvote 0

Christi

Well-Known Member
Mar 28, 2002
2,548
219
Visit site
✟4,038.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
tulc said:
Christi, grizzly am I going to have to separate you two! :mad:
Now both of you kiss and make up! :hug:
tulc(who's got a switch if he needs it!)
He keeps running away from me! Head him off with Ol' Betsy and I'll put the old smackaroo on him. ;)
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
grizzly said:
But tulc - I really felt we were getting somewhere
He keeps running away from me! Head him off with Ol' Betsy and I'll put the old smackaroo on him.
Ok. I'm not seeing a whole lot of making up in here, I did bring something I thought might help though:
violent-smiley-057.gif
but if the Jedi's aren't enough I did bring someone a bit more...aggressive!
star-wars-smiley-026.gif

tulc(may the farce be with you both!)
 
Upvote 0

geocajun

Priest of the holy smackrament
Dec 25, 2002
25,479
1,689
✟35,477.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
flesh99 said:
There is a vast difference is not supporting overturning Roe V Wade and declaring yourself pro-choice. You may well think that Roe V Wade shouldn't be overturned but that it can be invalidated as it is based on a non-existent right, a right that was essentially invented for the case that is mentioned not once in the costitution. However, if they are actively supporting a pro-choice position then they should by all means be denied communion. I have noted that nowhere in any of these statements does the Church use party lines, they are looking at a single issue that is a mortal issue, and actually trying to save people from themselves. Taking communion while in unrepentant sin is expressly forbidden and that is what they are enforcing. I cannot by any means find fault with that.

It is not that they want to alienate their members, their members are alienating themselves. The Church should not change doctrine to make people happy, the church should enforce doctrine no matter who it makes unhappy or uncomfortable, that is the job of the Church and the church for that matter. We are seeing more and more relativsim creep into different denominations and I am glad that it is not happening the Catholic Church or for that matter my church. The more I think about the more appealing Catholicism, well Othodoxy actually, becomes. They are strong in their beliefs and do not care about public opinion, which is as it should be.
well said! :)
 
Upvote 0

Larry

Fundamentalist Christian
Mar 27, 2003
2,002
96
Visit site
✟2,635.00
Faith
Christian
The Catholic Church has every right to enforce what it stands for among it's own members. It's as simple as that, folks. If members of the Catholic Church, or any church for that matter, do not like the doctrine and principles their own church stands for, there are always the exit doors...Use them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

geocajun

Priest of the holy smackrament
Dec 25, 2002
25,479
1,689
✟35,477.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Nathan Poe said:
Two points:

1: How are the churches going to find out who their members voted for? It's a secret ballot for a good reason.

Will there be a questionnaire at the beginning of each mass? "Now, by a show of hands, who voted democrat? Ok, you people, please leave."

Or will the priest ask each member individually as they come up to him, communion wafer in his hand, asking, "So, who did you vote for?"

Either way, would lying to the priest be considered a mortal sin?

Nathan, Individual Catholics form their conscience based on the teaching of the Catholic Church.. there is not a questionaire per se, that must be completed prior to receiving Communion, but there is an internal examination of conscience one must do to see if they are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion.



Nathan Poe said:
Second, I disagree with these tactics, considering them spiritual blackmail, but if we're going to applaud the church for taking a stand, then I'll also applaud those catholics who take a stand... and walk out of the church.

This won't last long, depending on how bare the collection baskets get.
Nathan, I think you are misreading the intent of this teaching.
What it IS, is the Pastors of the Catholic Church acting as shepherd to the Christians who could inadvertantly support a serious evil.

What it IS NOT, is the Catholic Church playing its hand in politics.
 
Upvote 0

burrow_owl

Senior Contributor
Aug 17, 2003
8,561
381
47
Visit site
✟25,726.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
this isn't about whether the Catholic Church has the right to enforce certain political beliefs; it's about whether they, as a body of Christ, should.

Secondarily, there's the legal/tax question of whether they can while still maintaining their tax-exempt status, but that's a bit outside the scope of the current discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Larry

Fundamentalist Christian
Mar 27, 2003
2,002
96
Visit site
✟2,635.00
Faith
Christian
burrow_owl said:
this isn't about whether the Catholic Church has the right to enforce certain political beliefs; it's about whether they, as a body of Christ, should.

Secondarily, there's the legal/tax question of whether they can while still maintaining their tax-exempt status, but that's a bit outside the scope of the current discussion.

This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church enforcing political beliefs. And, I never said that. Nice little spin, but I won't let you get away with it. ;)

If the Catholic Church is fundamentally against abortion, but some of it's members are supporting pro abortion stances, the Catholic Church has every right to deny communion, etc. The individual can support whatever they want. It's up to them to choose. :)
 
Upvote 0

charmtrap

Iä-R’lyeh! Cthulhu fhtagn
May 14, 2004
2,220
185
SF, CA
✟3,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Larry said:
This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church enforcing political beliefs. And, I never said that. Nice little spin, but I won't let you get away with it. ;)
Really? What did "Sheridan said voting for a politician who contradicts church teaching on abortion, gay marriage or other issues was a mortal sin, "like robbing a local store." mean then? Equating a vote with robbing a local store? That doesn't sound political to you?

Trying to bully your parishioners with threats of hell for votes sounds pretty political to me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Larry

Fundamentalist Christian
Mar 27, 2003
2,002
96
Visit site
✟2,635.00
Faith
Christian
charmtrap said:
Really? What did "Sheridan said voting for a politician who contradicts church teaching on abortion, gay marriage or other issues was a mortal sin, "like robbing a local store." mean then? Equating a vote with robbing a local store? That doesn't sound political to you?

Trying to bully your parishioners with threats of hell for votes sounds pretty political to me.


Hey new guy! :wave:

Welcome to the forums. :)

If I join any church which is vehemently opposed to abortion, for example, but I think abortion is okay, what do you think needs to change, my stance, the church's stance, or my membership in that church?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.