In Colorado, Vote wrong and be denied communion

[mpshiel]

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/26/church.politics.ap/index.html

Archbishop Charles Chaput, leader of Colorado's largest Roman Catholic diocese, said anyone committing a serious sin such as theft, lying or adultery should not take the sacrament, but "denying anyone communion is a very grave matter."

Chaput's comments, in the diocese's newspaper, came three weeks after a warning to Catholics from Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan. 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."

Several U.S. bishops have issued warnings to Catholic lawmakers whose public positions contradict the church, but Sheridan was believed to be the first to expand that directive to voters this election year

Apparently, in Colorado Springs, you vote for the wrong person and you don't get communion. Though how this will be enforced would be interesting to see. Perhaps just the threat of a moral sin will be enough to sway votes.

Interestingly in the UK two days ago the Anglican Church came out with "Embracing Life" which is essentially a guide for voters on how to determine who to vote for in the EU elections (and soon to come National) - though as it was put; "It merely highlight issues that a religiously minded person would find important and such a person would not want to vote in a politician that was opposed to these ideas.)

Is it just me, or is using heaven as a carrot and God and salvation as a club in influencing people on who to vote for extremely distasteful?

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

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!

 

[kdet]

I have to agree with Flesh99. I am glad that the Catholic church has came out with this. There have been times in my life that I didn't take communion because I knew that the state of my heart and soul was not right. If we are supporting things that we know are sins then something is definately wrong with our hearts and we need to get it right. The Church is simply setting standards for people.

 

[Grunt]

Those who support these sins being legal, whether by votes or in office, should pay the consequences of their actions.

So I take it you're gonna cast that first mutha?

The Catholic Church can shoot themselves in the foot all day long for all I care. They may beat some of their own into realizing that you can be Christian without the dogma, but that's their problem.

 

[neocon]

America would be a better place today had the RCC done this 50 years ago. Though I think the more effective thing would be for Churches which take traditional Christianity seriously to dicipline members who are public officials who use their State powers to promote abortion, homosexuality or other behaviours the Church counts as Sin.

 

[Polycarp1]

America would be a better place today had the RCC done this 50 years ago. Though I think the more effective thing would be for Churches which take traditional Christianity seriously to dicipline members who are public officials who use their State powers to promote abortion, homosexuality or other behaviours the Church counts as Sin.

There's a thread well worth reading over in One Bread, One Body based on my asking them about this Bishop's statement and the implications of "a bishop compelling a particular vote" by the threat of excommunication. Those of us who are liberal and perceive this action as I just described particularly would experience a real paradigm shift by what thoughtful Catholics had to say in that thread.

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 -- and that could very easily be understood to mean that you are advocating "behaviors the Church counts as sin." (The same could easily be said for me, or anybody else who posts here regularly, from jameseb to Robert43 to mhatten ...) So I am certainly not making an accusation against you personally, but using the point that none of us is without sin, and applying Scriptural truths to the hot-button political issues is fraught with difficulties. I know that nyj and I stand in complete opposition on one major issue, but with a great deal of mutual respect, because we are both following the teaching of our own bishop on that issue, and respect each other for doing so. Standing firm for what you believe is right against the world is laudable -- but the condemning and casting out of those who believe themselves to be doing likewise in a way contrary to your own, is IMO execrable.

I think that the least that Christian charity demands of each of us is that we hold each other in brotherly love in Christ and in respect, and that we make a firm effort to understand the positions of those opposed to us for reasons based in Scripture and Christian doctrine, even if we fail to agree with them.

 

[Grizzly]

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!

I think the Cathoic Church has every right to demand this from its members. If the members don't like it, they need to either try and change the Church from the inside, or leave.

I left the Church a number of years ago because, in part, I could not agree with the Church on a number of issues. That, and I also realized that God didn't exist. That was the clincher

 

[Rae]

Great! I hope Catholics will take this to heart and not vote for anyone who supports the death penalty, as that, too, goes against their Church teaching.

 

[Polycarp1]

Great! I hope Catholics will take this to heart and not vote for anyone who supports the death penalty, as that, too, goes against their Church teaching.

And the Pope has spoken quite sternly about the conduct of the war in Iraq, too.

But, as Sweetkitty has said a number of times in a quite different context, we are all obliged to vote our consciences, casting our votes for those candidates who come closest to supporting what we believe to be morally right.

It might be noted that many Catholics believe abortion to be a foundational issue, since a person who is not even born has no other rights whatsoever!

 

[Christi]

I think the Cathoic Church has every right to demand this from its members. If the members don't like it, they need to either try and change the Church from the inside, or leave.

I agree....it's a separation issue. We can't demand Christian beliefs or chuches/denominations to change our rules to fit with the law of the land, any more than we can expect the law of the land to change to fit Christian beliefs.

That, and I also realized that God didn't exist. That was the clincher

Yes He does.

 

[Rae]

we are all obliged to vote our consciences, casting our votes for those candidates who come closest to supporting what we believe to be morally right.

Yep. I just hope the Catholics here are honest enough to stop taking communion when they vote in a way their church doesn't think is morally right, even if they think it's the right thing to do ... and on ALL the issues the church doesn't think is morally right, not just abortion rights or lack thereof. Including the war on Iraq.

 

[DJ B.K.]

My hate for Bush has made me have to search for a good third party candidate. I found a good party but I can't find much about their presidential candidate. Their party does go along with the major catholic beliefs.

 

[Starscream]

The Catholic church is standing up for their beliefs and I for one appluad them for it.

Not exactly. I didn't see the Catholic Bishop make any mention of the 'mortal sin' invovled with voting for a candidate that supports the death penalty.

Not very consistent.

 

[Grizzly]

Yes He does.

Nuh uh.

 

[crystalpc]

I have to agree with this stance, hooray for the Catholics...

 

[burrow_owl]

Two things strike me as odd: as others have pointed out, their recent political engagement is only limited to abortion (as opposed to, say, the death penalty).

Second: a vote for Guliani, Pataki, Chafee, Ah-nuld, or any number of other moderate Republicans should also be enough for the denial of communion, yet the present controversy is limited to votes for a democrat. That suggests that this is nothing but naked partisanship.

 

[tulc]

Christi, grizzly am I going to have to separate you two!
Now both of you kiss and make up!
tulc(who's got a switch if he needs it!)

 

[DaveSZ]

Two things strike me as odd: as others have pointed out, their recent political engagement is only limited to abortion (as opposed to, say, the death penalty).

Second: a vote for Guliani, Pataki, Chafee, Ah-nuld, or any number of other moderate Republicans should also be enough for the denial of communion, yet the present controversy is limited to votes for a democrat. That suggests that this is nothing but naked partisanship.

I agree, and it is nothing but naked partisanship because they don't single out pro-choice or pro-war Republicans like Guiuliani, Pataki, Tom Ridge, etc.

If they don't want left-wing Catholics anymore, then I guess I am not welcome.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

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...

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I was correct about the death penalty:

1. It has never been spoken on ex-cathedra
2. It is not forbidden when there is no other means to protect society

While Evangelicum Vitae is not ex-cathedra it is to be given high regard and careful consideration, but as it has not been deemed ex-cathedra then communion could not be denied for not following it. The same holds true for the war in Iraq. These arguments are strawmen essentially and are not the same level as abortion. Therein lies the difference. It is not playing favorites, or being biased, it is following doctrine to the letter. Even though I support the death penalty, if it were spoken on ex-cathedra then I would applaud the Catholic Church for denying communion to those who support it. It is a wonderful thing to see churches whose doctrine does not change to fit the winds of public opinion, as God does not change to fit those whims neither should the doctrine of the church.