Pelosi gets taken to the Catholic woodshed
Well, it looks like Catholic officials are finally getting serious about holding left-wing public figures who claim the faith accountable for their words and actions:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has accepted an invitation from San Francisco’s archbishop to discuss whether she should continue to receive communion at the Catholic Church in the wake of comments she made about abortion.
San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer requested the meeting after receiving letters and e-mails from “many Catholics” expressing dismay over Pelosi’s remarks that the question of when life begins remained controversial within the church. He said many of those writing questioned whether Pelosi should be able to receive communion.
Pelosi made the remarks in an Aug. 24 interview with “Meet the Press” host Tom Brokaw. In response to Brokaw’s question, “When does life begin?” Pelosi answered, “We don’t know. The point is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.” She went on to say, “I don’t think anyone can tell you when life begins — when human life begins.”
After Brokaw said that the Catholic Church believes strongly that life begins at conception, Pelosi said, “I understand,” but went on to say it had been an issue of controversy within the church for the past 50 years.
Her comments have been criticized by several Catholic Church officials, and Niederauer described them as being “in serious conflict” with the church in the Sept. 5 issue of Catholic San Francisco. Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl issued a separate statement the day after Pelosi’s “Meet the Press” appearance, criticizing the comments as “incorrect.”
Niederauer concluded that, based on Catholic Church statements, it is up to him as Pelosi’s pastor to address whether she may continue to receive communion.
Now, what about race-mongering Rev. Michael Pfleger?
And how about that Joe Biden, huh?
***
Catholicism is a voluntary association. No one is forced to be Catholic. If Pelosi can’t accept the foundational teachings of the Church, then she should find a church that supports abortion and stop making ridiculous rationalizations about Catholicism. Biden needs something more if he believes human life begins at conception and fails to act to protect it. It’s time for Catholics to demand that politicians who run on their faith begin to act on it as well.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Are We Lumberjacks?
- Rev. Wright is just another adulterer. « Mcnorman’s Weblog
- The Pope Is Starting To Get Upset « American Sentinel Quick Hits
- Peliosi describes Catholic Church position on when life begins - attempt fails | Conservative247
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Nancy Pelosi
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularDoug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%Mudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
Pelosi isn’t a faithful Catholic. In her mind, the Catholic Church should bend to her dogma, not the other way around. What does this say about her?
I wish the Catholic Church would just once and for all take a stand over these “Cafeteria Catholics,” who like to pick and choose what they believe when it’s “convenient.” Pelosi reminds me of my two sisters-in-law who support abortion and who keep saying that the Catholic Church should fall in line with their beliefs.
So, I guess the Catholic Church should be like our pop culture, right? Let’s just compromise our integrity in every way and bow to loose, popular mores. I’m not even a Catholic and think that such opinions really are stupid.
Let’s be honest here… if you believe in abortion and gay marriage, you’re not a Catholic. You’re just somebody who is a hypocrite who needs to find a new home. My two sisters-in-law still go to church and it makes me wonder when the Church is gonna say enough is enough already.
Sigh…. this is probably why I don’t go to church anymore… nobody stands for anything at all. The Catholic Church needs to focus on their “real” loyal followers, not the ones who are pretenders to the faith.
I have wondered for years, how any Christian could claim to be a Democrat. And, I have asked the Lord for years, “where is Jesus in Jesse”. Of course, only He knows Jesse’s heart, but, by outward actions, well. You draw your own conclusions. Most of the key Democrat Party platform planks that I am aware of are contrary to Christian beliefs. So glad to see that Nancy is to be held accountable (I hope) by her pastor. Wonder how she’s going to try to weasel out of it?
mojoe….. you are more than welcome and I was honored to have served to defend everyone’s right to post here. But, keep in mind, there is a right to refute respectfully too, and while I may fail from time to time, I hope I try to do so honorably.
Um, no, not unless I underwent some pretty radical operations without my knowledge…I’m all girl.
And, my moniker refers not to my nationality (I’m American) but my area of study in college and grad school. But I get that confusion all the time…I’m not posing as the ruler of England.
In regards to what is and isn’t a sin in the realm of religion versus society, this is what we Catholics believe:
Our primary allegiance should always be to God and His teachings. When society reflects those teachings – secularly or otherwise (such as a respect for human life) – we are free to live in society without objection to it.
However, when society allows a grave evil to perpetuate (as it does with abortion) – we have a moral obligation to fight against unjust laws (and abortion laws are unjust to women and children) and be witnesses to the truth. Even if that means being harassed, condemned, or persecuted. This is a fate promised to all Christians:
I love my country and the freedoms it affords me. But when my relationship with God is challenged or threatened, and when the salvation of my brothers and sisters is at stake, my allegiance lies with God and no one (or nothing) else.
In the Decalogue the first two Commandments are….. Love your God with all your heart…. the second is love your neighbor as yourself. How , in all that’s holy, can you follow the second if abortion is defended by you. These two Commandments are the most important.. all others fall under them. Interestingly enough, these are the two most difficult for humans.
I am not a Catholic, not even protestant… I am a Baptist, however; It was quite easy for me to find this quote from the Pope from 2005.
Nancy Pelosi is quite disingenuous to suggest that this is just a political football that Republicans like to throw around and that the Catholics aren’t sure whether abortion is good or bad. That’s would be analogous to Nancy P. wondering if her constituents in San Francisco are gay.
I just hope the Bishop Niederauer doesn’t wuss out.
A very good point, but definitely in need of clarification before the “See, God doesn’t want you to criticize your neighbors!” crowd gets going.
In Christian teaching, the ultimate goal is eternal salvation and an eternal relationship with God through Christ. Any Christian who loves God enough to strive for this goal has to, in turn, love himself enough to make the sacrifices and life choices necessary to achieve that goal.
So when we are to “love our neighbor as ourselves”, one of the most integral goals of that love is to correct our neighbor and guide him toward a relationship with Christ: especially when we know that neighbor is engaging in actions that endanger that relationship.
Which is exactly what this Bishop is doing. Which is exactly what all Christians are called to do. Indeed, the consequences of knowingly failing to correct and abate the sins of the world (or knowingly aiding in misleading people to sin) are far more severe than living in sin ignorantly.
This also explains why the passage “Judge not, lest ye be judged” deals not with criticizing another’s behavior, but attempting to be the ultimate decision-maker in where one is headed after death (heaven versus hell). Nothing more and nothing else than that.
BTTT:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09092008/news/nationalnews/o_pastor_in_sex_scandal_128142.htm
O PASTOR IN SEX SCANDAL
Reverend Wright
The catholic church is in decline for a lot of reasons, and I don’t want to foment a religious debate.
One thing is pretty hard to debate, however: the majority of practicing catholics want a more conservative church. They want a church that demands obedience, and rebukes those that don’t obey.
They essentially want “the old church” back.
The old catholic church simply wouldn’t have tolerated the Orwellian logic that “pro-abortion catholics” have been feeding to a willing press for something like 20 years now.
“While I am personally against abortion, I cannot force my beliefs on a pluralistic society.”
Pity they don’t feel that way about taxes. It would be nice for these lunatics to say “While I personally support more taxes, I cannot force this belief on everyone else.”
It’s a patently stupid statement, and it’s about time that the catholic church start doing more than just refusing these people communion. Abortion is a grave sin – a *mortal* sin, to catholics. To knowingly and willingly empower it, as Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, Giuliani, and all of these others do, is a grave offense.
To PARLAY this into gaining elected office – which is precisely what these “champions of women’s rights to choose” do – has made a travesty of the church.
We’ll see what happens next…
Everyone, please stop arguing about “when life begins.” It doesn’t matter.
Even if it is a mere “lump of flesh” while in the womb, it is undeniable that it will eventually become a human life.
A State that allows its own citizens to “remove the lump of flesh” willy-nilly (from whim or fancy or economics) is a State priming its citizens for outright slavery in the form of collectivism.
China is a State that actively prevents “lumps of flesh” from being born. It sees human life as low enough to be enslaved or discarded at whim. Their whim was “overpopulation.”
A collectivist America’s whim may be the same, coupled with, say, “global warming.”
The State should never have the kind of power to view even the possibility of human life as something to be discarded on a whim or fad.
If a “lump of flesh” can be discarded by the State, then its fruition – a human being – can be enslaved by the State.
And slaves can be murdered at will.
No – I agree. It is precisely because of the liberal bishops and priests that the numbers are in decline.
One look at conservative, traditional, and orthodox seminaries, religious orders, and parishes shows that their numbers are increasing.
Catholics want to be counter-cultural. We want a Church with high expectations and demands.
You take an oath of faith, then you should be expected to live it. Otherwise, renounce you faith. Seems pretty straightforward.
Just like with the pedophile priests, the Catholic Church is a day late and a dollar short. They should have been going after these “Catholic” politicians decades ago. For too many years, the Church teachings have taken a backseat to big money donations and political correctness.
Not all. I have friends who are catholic and take their faith very seriously.
…(she)went on to say it had been an issue of controversy within the church for the past 50 years.
This is patently untrue, but I think she was doing something even more egregious when she said this. More than 50 years ago there was very little open debate on abortion because it was generally considered…by all…as an abomination. It could not be discussed in polite company and the worst insult that could be made to a doctor was to call him/her an “abortionist”.
This debate skulked out into the light…and so the Church (and other churches and groups) had to debate the issue. Thus, Rep. Pelosi can hold out that this has been a matter of debate for the last 50 years. It has not…it has been responded to for 50 years.
We have that problem in Canada with politicians and teachers. Membership has its priveliges. You can say you are Catholic but you don’t have to be a practicing one. The bishops shouldn’t discuss not giving Pelosi Communion, they should do it. If Pelosi or Biden (or anyone else) doesn’t want to abide by Church teachings, they shouldn’t be allowed to accept the Body and Blood of Christ.
People might think this sounds harsh, but it is not. Every institution has its rules which must be followed. Furthermore, Pelosi and Biden are free to return after they see the error of their ways (re: Prodigal Son).
I’m thinking you misunderstood me, guitarplayer.
I take my faith very seriously. Deadly seriously – because it is a matter of life and death.
However – no matter what popular culture and the media will tell you – the faith of Christians is now what’s counter-cultural. We reject the things the world considers “normal” and “okay”…we are the ones going against cultural norms.
Read this homily by my own Archbishop (audio here, for August 31, 2008). It gets to the heart of what I’m trying to say:
That’s what I’m talking about. Those of us, like your friends, who take their faith seriously are being counter-cultural.
I agree. Two living cells do not combine to create death. It is living and the debate ends there.
Bingo! Well put.
Pelosi and Biden are Catholics In Name Only.
I agree with the posters Floyd R. Turbo and MNUSMCDavid.
How can these people, and democrats in general, reconcile their direct or implicit support of abortion with their religion?
Somehow, they are rationalizing this situation in a way that they are fine with it. Problem is… this is no “fine with it” when it comes to abortion.
I’ll accept that people make mistakes, but to knowingly take these positions as an informed, grown Roman Catholic adult is beyond rationality.
Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Biden should in fact be excommunicated from the Catholic Church until such time they accept God’s teachings. Yes, that’s harsh, but it’s also reality.
And yes, I’m a practicing Roman Catholic.
English Queen, I couldn’t have shone a better light on my comment than you have if I tried… you went deep into my soul and thought making and brought it out perfectly.
You know, the funny thing is that she is probably going to debate them and try to convince them that she is right, they are wrong and that the Pope needs to change his stance on the murdering of the unborn.
Anyone taking bets?
I will say it again. The Liberals and Pro-Death camp likes to try and rationalize this away, claiming the are not ending a life.
Well, the result of a live birth is a life.
When you remove the fetus/child/lump of tissue, whatever you want to call it, by ANY means, that action stops the ability of having a live birth.
Therefore, by the very definition, having an abortion IS ending a life.
Does not matter when it is you think that a soul enters the body, or in the case of Athiests and others the “life force” or whatever they call it, you are stopping the ability of that happening, thus you are ENDING A LIFE.
PERIOD.
At that point, how can anyone rationalize the ending of an innocent child’s life?
Good lord! If Pelosi’s eyes pop out any further they’ll be forced to put strings on the backsides so she doesn’t step on them when they blast out of their sockets.
You’re welcome. I’m getting the hang of this theology thing…
I would like to see any one of the “non-religious” collectivists here – LGM, bemusedlib, NYK, (doesn’t matter, all the same) argue against post #110.
It is a secular, atheist argument against abortion. No theology required.
FilmLadd,
Me too.
FilmLadd – that’s the very point Archbishop Chaput makes.
Can I use my penumbra’d “right to privacy” to take stuff from others without agreed upon compensation?
Can I use it to burn down someone elses house?
Can I use it to kill you?
The answer to all of those is “No”. The reason why is they infringe on the greater rights of someone else. An old saying goes “Your right to throw a punch ends at my nose.”
An abortion infringes on the right of the aborted to live. Thus it should only occur when continued pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.
The left strongly support sex education in public schools, right? What do those proponents of this “education” teach about the purpose of ovaries, fallopian tubes, and the uterus? If I am correct in assuming that their only function is to facilitate life (reproduction), then how can an argument be made that ontravening that purpose is not destroying life? Is there another purpose for life’s pathway that we don’t know about?
I’m curious about the concept of a “Right to Choose”. As far as I am aware it is only ever used in the abortion debate.
Question: Does a man have the “right to choose” to commit rape?
I doubt even the most committed misogynist would use that as a defence in a court of law!
There is no such thing as a “Right to Choose”. Life confronts us with choices, our responsibility is to choose what is right!
If you can kill an unborn child, should you not be able to kill an old adult? I am not sure I heart this right, but I thought I heard that the California legislature passed just such a law, and it is waiting for the governor’s signature. Folks, we are in a world of hurt.
The Catholic Church is something of a conundrum to me.
I am Presbyterian. My wife was raised Catholic – her family regular parishioners and contributers to her local parish. When we were to marry, it was my view that since she and her family were more into the church than I, it would only be right to be married in her church – it didn’t matter to me. But not so fast! In order to marry us, her Priest said I would HAVE to attend classes and ultimately become a Catholic, and also attend pre-marital “counseling.”
By a Priest – who cannot be married? Who can know exactly what about marital relations?
Anyway – when I refused to go along with this – with my future wifes concurrence – the Priest refused to marry us and told my wife if she married outside her church she could not receive the Sacraments. What?
We went directly to my Presbyterian church, where I had not attended regularly for some time. Our Pastor said simply “Welcome Home – of course I will marry you”. My wife of 38 years now has yet to return to “her” church – our son was baptized in the Presbyterian Church and we attend services there, though not regularly.
My Dad was born and raised Catholic. Alter boy and the whole thing. He fell away when he married my Mom, and over the years our family attended services at various denomination churches. “All God’s Children”, right? Not so much. My Dad became a Freemason, like most of the men in our family before and since. He was thusly excommunicated. When he passed some years back I asked a local Priest if he would offer a mass for Dad. NO. But … I had heart surgery a few years ago in a Catholic hospital, and had Priests and Sisters stop in my room before the surgery asking if I would pray with them for my survival – which was tenuous at best – knowing from my records that I was not a Catholic. I of curse explained to the Priests and Sisters that I would be grateful, and also my wifes situation within the Church. Their reply was “we don’t care about that at a time like this ” and prayed together, after which a Sister stayed with my wife outside the surgery suite for 7 1/2 hours until my surgery was finished.
I am still, 10 years later, trying to come to terms with this deal.
I see what you mean now. You are right. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
No need to apologize – it sounds strange to say we’re counter-cultural when the MSM and liberal types constantly rage against our supposed domination of the world…
No, but you can use the State to do it all for you.
Some great insight you have there. Thanks again for clearing that up.
Not so. The Archbishop’s statement appeared in Catholic San Francisco. Not quite a press conference. In fact, you can bet Nancy Pelosi and the vast majority of her constituents have never read it or even heard of it. That venue was intended for Catholics in the area.
Even so, she took the discussion public. If the Archbishop decided to make a public statement, ti would be wholey appropriate given the forum the topic had already entered.
The issue isn’t her public policy decisions… its her gross inaccuracies she blathers about to the press. She does not speak for the Church, though as a Catholic, she should.
First… if they are good, religious individuals, they would not condone or support abortion. They are at best.. misguided. Tell them to ask their Pastor what Jesus would say to them about their Pro-Choice position.
I -am- particularly religious by the way.
As for what has been going on in the Church for the last 2000 years, I question your ability to speak to that first of all. Second, assuming you really are thinking about the last 50 years. That debate, such as it is, is among the “good, religious individuals” you referred to… like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and yes, Rudy Guiliani. There’s no debate, nor has there been any debate about the acceptability of abortion in the organization known as the Church.
Bruce – First and foremost, the duty of a priest is to lead his parish and his parishioners in a direction faithful to Christ and the teachings of the Church. In essence, the Church is the priest’s “bride”, because Catholics have always considered the Church (the structure) a symbolic representation of the love and nurturing bestowed on us by our biological mothers. This is often a very demanding job.
My priest is in charge of two very large parishes, both holding 4-5 masses a weekend, with thousands of families and many, many parishioners. They call on him for everything from weddings to baptisms to funerals. Once, he showed up to Mass after having a sleepless night…spent in the hospital with a parishioner whose husband was sick and eventually passed away.
Through the discipline of celibacy, a priest affords himself the ability to commit himself fully to his duties to the Church and parishioners – as well as to foster and deepen his understanding of the sacraments…including marriage. As much as I think my priest is a wonderful guy, there’s no way he could be there for a wife and children the way a father should be.
The Catholic teaching on the subject of marriage is quite profound and beautiful. By the way – the Church does allow married priests. Those who convert from other denominations (like a Lutheran minister) can serve as priests and receive a dispensation from the discipline of celibacy.
I am deeply sorry the priest you encountered was so harsh. It is not prohibited in the Church for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic. I should know – I was Lutheran when my husband and I got engaged. In fact, it was my Lutheran pastor who vehemently objected to me marrying a Catholic in the Catholic Church – he even indicated to do so would put my soul in grave danger (read: I’m going straight to hell) and wanted me to have my husband convert to Lutheranism or call of the relationship!
Needless to say, I left. And I don’t regret for one second making the decision to (willfully) convert. But my husband’s priest would have married us regardless – and been completely correct and justified in doing so.
The pre-Cana classes are required for all couples seeking marriage in the Catholic Church – it is a way to reiterate the Church’s teaching on the sacrament and give the couples some pre-marriage counseling. It is not a bad idea, and we learned a lot from our experience.
But this priest was wrong. And I’m sorry.
Nope – no debate. Perhaps among members who don’t understand the teaching (like Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Kennedy et. al.) but never where it matters…the Magisterium.
Abortion has always been an evil. No bones about it.
By the way – since when did saying something’s Constitutional make it morally and ethically correct?
I recall about 80 years ago that alcohol was prohibited in the 18th Amendment.
Appropriately, the Catholic Church deemed this an unjust law and Catholics were not obligated to obey prohibition.
Likewise, the Catholic Church also officially taught slavery was a sin and – for a time – slavery was considered a legal, Constitutionally protected right.
So should Catholics have just shut up and obeyed the unjust laws of prohibition and – more gravely – slavery?
No.
So we’re definitely not going to shut up in the face of the gravest evil – abortion. An unjust practice if there ever was one.
Actually, EQ, Bemused and I discussed this. What he meant was that there was debate in general within the church over the past 2000 years. He didn’t mean any specific issue. See his post at #56. I would’ve taken him to task had he meant abortion specifically.
I hope the Catholic church does take action on their famously “pro-choice” parishioners.
As far as taking Communion, Pelosi has a lot more to worry about than some bishop.
Apostle Paul said:
I believe the Catholic Church needs to act like the Catholic Church and stop trying to please society. The difference between right and wrong is not that hard to see. I have read recently – though I don’r remember the exact source it that it is the conservative churches that are growing in number.
Bruce,
I’m very sorry to hear that your wife’s priest took such a hard line. My brother’s wife is Catholic and they were married in that church. There was no nuptial mass, as my brother and I were raised Presbyterian, but he did have to agree to bring up any children as Catholics. No problem.
I think Nancy Pelosi has some confusion over the word ‘controversy’. Birth control seems to me an issue of controversy within the church, if only because the church’s official position is widely ignored (or ‘qualified’). The point at which life begins is not.
As others have pointed out, it should not be required to convert to Catholicism to marry a Catholic… the stipulation, as Rachel says, is that any offspring of the marriage must be raised in the Catholic faith, _and you must agree to do so_.
I’m surprised so many Catholics are here. I am one myself, and I must agree that the Church (at least in this country) has not been at its best in its calling to account the political leaders who claim to belong to the Church without professing such.
However, I am also well aware that the Magisterium is taking steps to remedy the situation, and recent events regarding some of our, ah, more controversial American clergy may show that God is taking a hand as well.
BTW, Michelle, I’m not sure if this has been made known to you, but Archbishop Chaput has also come down on Senator Biden for his recent, ah, ‘unfortunate’ remarks. It’s very gratifying to see.
Fair enough, Rachel – but being of Scottish descent – it was a problem for me. I was not brought up that way – my sister and I attended many churches as kids, and were later allowed to make our own decision what church we would follow. I went with my mothers (Scottish) Presbyterian church – my sister decided to follow the Baptists. My son likewise is being given the freedom to follow his own head. I bristle at someone telling me I MUST bring my children up in any particular religion.
EQ … that is fine for those who have the desire to commit to the Catholic church. I, however, did not. I did not – and still don’t – find a need to be educated in Catholic doctrine that in some ways differs from my own church’s teachings. I see no way that a Priest who has never lived with a woman can possibly educate me on a relationship he is totally unfamiliar with. Priests, in general, have few concerns about the financial, inter-relational, and sexual difficulties many times involved in a marriage. Yes – I know some (very few) Priests are allowed ordination when they come from other affiliations that allow it, but that doesn’t in my view change the basic problem I faced.
Now I note this was 38 years ago, and maybe things have changed some. I honestly don’t know enough about the Catholic church to say. I am not trying to demean the church – this is just my view based on my wifes (and later my Dads) being denied the Sacraments of the church they believed in. I accept your views that this is not typical of your church, but by the same token – it was MANY years from the time my Dad was raised as a Master Mason (later 32nd Degree) and then excommunicated and his passing and denial of the Sacraments. I rather believe our mutual God would not be so judgmental to one of His sons.
By the way, ladies, I should in full disclosure state that recent decisions of the Presbyterian churches North American Synod have caused me to leave my original church and align myself with the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), which has been steadfast in it’s mission and not turned the way of the Methodist church. When I attend services, I want to hear the Pastor preach the Gospel, and not political speeches. That’s just me
I wonder why you are surprised at that? It would seem to me that Conservatives specifically are much more likely to be followers of a faith than are those on the left.
I too am puzzled why the church allows one who defies their churches doctrine to receive the Sacraments and the Host.
So these two will sit down for a wee chat and come up with some politically palatable palaver and smile for the cameras.
The politicians need to be seen as being ‘religious’ (they can read the polls that show voters prefer voting for candidates who are ‘religious’ – - as long as they don’t belong to Reverend Wright/Wrong’s church).
And the Catholic church needs the support of politicians who will try to pass amnesty for the millions of illegal alien invaders who will fill their pews and their coffers. And these politicians are, for the most part, Dimocrats.
Don’t expect any lightning bolts from the Vatican or its underlings in this meeting or in any other meetings that may follow.
Sorry about that.
Pelosi and Biden (and Kennedy for that matter) are what I refer to as smörgåsbord Catholics, that is, they think they can pick and choose which of the doctrines they like and just pass on the others.
I agree Ed, the time is now.
Only after “public outcry” does the Catholic church feel compelled to act. I recall Jesus saying, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28).
We wonder why the local church so closely resembles the world in its cultural beliefs and its own behavior. If American churches were serious about calling themselves “those called out” (from the Greek word ekklesia), then maybe they should hold their own accountable, rebuke them, correct them, and if that doesn’t work, throw them out. Christians are called to judge their own, keep them accountable, not out of spite or malice, but because they love them and love God (Matt. 7:1-5, Gal. 6:1-2, 1 Thes. 5:4-15, Jude 22-23)
I quote Norman Geisler:
“While Jesus described Christendom between His two comings as having both wheat and tares, believers and non-believers (Matt. 13:24-30), nowhere is it prescribed by Jesus or His apostles that unbelievers should be part of a local church. Like the invisible church, the visible church should have only a regenerate membership; only those who are in Christ’s invisible church (2 Cor. 5:17) should be in His visible church, for He is the Head of both. Never does a New Testament epistle address itself to unbelievers; if there were unbelievers in the church, it is only because they ‘crept in’ (Jude 4) under false pretenses, not because they were knowingly accepted. The devil sowed tares among the wheat (Matt. 13:26-28).”
As Jesus said, “you will know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:16).
… that is fine for those who have the desire to commit to the Catholic church. I, however, did not. I did not – and still don’t – find a need to be educated in Catholic doctrine that in some ways differs from my own church’s teachings.
You never know…you might learn something, even if you still don’t agree with it.
Priests, in general, have few concerns about the financial, inter-relational, and sexual difficulties many times involved in a marriage. Yes – I know some (very few) Priests are allowed ordination when they come from other affiliations that allow it, but that doesn’t in my view change the basic problem I faced.
You’d be surprised. A good number of new priests are older men who have had life experience. Some have been married and widowed.
Also, the leaders at a Cana conference are almost always a married couple. And we also have permanent deacons now, who are almost always married or widowed. Many of them are trained in marriage counseling.
The Bible requires church leaders to have successful marriages and families(1 Tim. 3:2, 12). And for good reason.
Funny thing: it says they should be men, too, but people don’t like to talk about that part very much (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9, Isaiah 3:12).
Send_Me said:
Well, the Bible says a bishop must be the husband of one wife.
Normally, that would rule out women bishops, but I suppose it is now possible to have a woman bishop in Massachusetts.
Wow, wow, just wow.
From Salon.com ( I had to see why Camille Paglia was not bashing Sarah), a poster expressing their views on fetuses vs. meat eating.
While they do encourage both people to be Catholic, it is not necessary, and could just be the particular parish’s rule. You can find more liberal priests and churches, or you can get married anywhere you want, and just have a priest bless your marriage at a later date. I and others I know have done that as my wife was not Catholic and we actually had my Uncle get a one day license from the county to be allowed to perform the ceremony.
Well then by God, it’s euthenasia time for the lot of people suffering from brain injuries. And if I am not mistaken, he just described the entirety of the Liberal Fringe of the Democrat Party and those partaking in the “protests” at the RNC.
Whoever this person is is one hell of a heartless, souless sub-human. He makes the SS guards at Auschwitz look like angels.
The modern teachings in the seminary now goes into a great deal of training and so forth in this area.
Also, unlike in days of old, now-a-days, the men entering into the priesthood are not the young, innocent, inexperienced virgins of old. The Catholic Church actually encourages men who are thinking about entering into Christ’s Calling to go out and date women. While not coming forward and encouraging them to have pre-marital sex, as you can imagine, such things do occur. As the other person mentioned, most of the guys going to Seminary have been through college already and have quite a bit of worldly experience before committing. It helps to keep those from getting into their studies and suddenly realizing they have not lived and wondering what else is out there and whether or not they made the correct decision.
Awe heck…I would be willing to bet they don’t even go to church on Christmas and Easter like the other 75% of the Catholics in this country.
And when, do you think, was the last time any of them partook in the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, and do you think for one minute they were even honest with themselves when they did. However, I would be willing to bet Teddy has been going regularly for the last year.
(Speaking of…I hope I remember myself on Saturday.)
I, personally, stopped going to church for a long time, simply because of the fact that Mass had turned into some kind of Hippie Jam Fest. The priests and Alterboys, I know, they are called “Altar-servers” now) began dressing like hippies in sacks with ropes tied around their waists instead of the traditional cassoks, there was accoustic guitars for days, verything was being sung by everyone and people bagan acting like they were in some sort of Evangelical Revival…hands raised, mimicking the priest etc. Full rock bands began to show up complete with one guy having quite possibly the worst bass solo on Christmas Eve that I have ever heard.
I, personally, miss the way Mass was celebrated, and wish I could find a church locally that was still doing it the old way. No, not in Latin with the priest’s back to the congregation, but without the Hippie Fest. However, I am afraid that it will be an impossiblity and I sucked it up a while ago and go to weekday masses where the bands and guitars don’t seem to tread.
Where do you live? Every archdiocese has parishes that are liturgically sound and others that…well, aren’t.
I might be able to offer some suggestions.
RetFireman said:
Did you just say that they are qualified to give marriage counseling because they went to college and even dated a bit?! That is like saying someone is qualified to be president after being a community organizer.
I went through college and dated, but that is nothing like marriage.
Sorry – but saying a priest can’t know about marriage because he’s not married is like saying a someone can’t comment on war if they’ve never been a soldier.
It’s a rather…Democratic tactic, and one that just doesn’t make sense.
There are non-Catholic clergy that don’t marry. Yet there is no doubt about their ability to offer advice on marriage.
A good priest will know what the Church teaches about marriage – about it being a Sacrament; lifelong, loving, life-giving and about the Biblical basis for such. A marriage based on faith is much stronger…a marriage counseled on faith can only be stronger.
Quite frankly, having someone unfettered by marriage is probably more beneficial. Why? Because they have no pre-conceived biases about marriage. The priest can’t commiserate with a husband who’s wife nags him to pick up the laundry or turn off the football game. Or, in turn, hold up his wife as an “example” for a wife in a troubled marriage.
It offers a faith-based objectivity that makes sense.
englishqueen01 said:
I think you are trying hard to rationalize this away. Marriage advice that comes from real world experience can only be stronger.
Perhaps you see it differently, but I take parenting advice from actual parents a lot more seriously than people who are single and childless. There are some things you just cannot understand unless you have been through it.
Experience matters (not just in presidential elections).
Placer County, Calif.
The main reason my dad lamented leaving the church – other than being excommunicated for being a Freemason – was the loss of the Latin Mass. He mentioned it to me many, many times during his life. He looked for years to find a parish that still celebrated the Mass in Latin without success.
Exactly my point, Trollman. It is all well and good for a Priest to advise a couple how a strong marriage SHOULD be based on faith – but when one or both of the parties deviate or do not subscribe to that … what then? A Priest can know the answers to these questions how?
I understand what EQ is saying. I just disagree – aside from the fact that what gives ANY church the right to tell me I MUST raise my children in a faith I don’t follow, and that I must learn about the beliefs of that church? I’m sorry – the answer is no, I will not.
I forgot to mention, most marriage counselors state unequivocally that a good marriage needs to be a 50/50 proposition. Using that as a bar – how then can we say it is required of me to agree to raise my son in the Catholic church because my wife is catholic and would have liked to have been married therein? What about MY input there? Or is it okay for a marriage to NOT be 50/50 where religion is at issue?
I will look into it.
Bruce: I believe marriage is a 100/100 proposition.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the issue. I just find the “Priests can’t give advice about marriage because they’re not married!” argument as off-putting as “Bush can’t make decisions about war because his kids aren’t in the military.”
Same thing, really.
I don’t want to belabor the issue, EQ, so I agree we’ll just have to disagree. Whatever feelings I have about the church are my own and I understand why you would differ. You are of the faith, and would look at things differemtly than I would I’m certain.
But to compare marriage and war is just a bit of a stretch, imo.
50/50 or 100/100 is just semantics. The fact remains that in an equal relationship – in this type of case – more weight is being given to one party than the other. The others religion is being subverted. I disagree with that. So did my wife, and because of that she is forever being denied her own churches Sacraments. That is just WRONG.
I think we should end this now. Agree?
But to compare marriage and war is just a bit of a stretch, imo.
I’m married to EQ. It’s not a stretch, believe me.
RetFireman: I don’t know how far this place is from you, but this place seems to have its act together.
I agree, although my war reference wasn’t trying to equate marriage with war, but rather the attitudes of who is and isn’t qualified to speak on the subject.
No ill will here – thank you for your courtesy and understanding.
I wonder if there’s room in that woodshed for a cot, dear.
EnglishQueen-PrinceConsort. Just beautiful! Never caught that. Love it!
Oh, and thank you. I will look into it.
It is a bit far, but will definitely have a place to go on my ski trips this winter.
Senator Barack Obama has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, whereas his positions are 100% supporting abortion on demand with NO restrictions. In fact, he had told Planned Parenthood directly in a speech on July 17th, 2007:
“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom Of Choice Act.”
FOCA will strip any and all restrictions on abortion that have helped to reduce the number of abortions slowly but gradually over the decades.
Senator Obama made a statement last night on the abortion topic that, and I paraphrase, he “supports limits on late term abortions / partial birth abortion”. He made himself look like he was trying to find common ground on the abortion topic and likely scored points with viewers of the debate.
NOT! That is hypocrisy at its utmost when LIFE is at stake. He consistently is against ANY and ALL restrictions on abortion as consistent with his 100% rating form NARAL and Planned Parenthood and support for the Freedom of Choice Act.
See my blog that tries to take a Christian / Catholic point of view on this election. It’s my “layperson’s journey” to the Catholic Church challenge its faithful in “Forming Conscience through Faithful Citizenship”.
http://blog.iowacatholicvote.com
Senator Barack Obama has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, whereas his positions are 100% supporting abortion on demand with NO restrictions. In fact, he had told Planned Parenthood directly in a speech on July 17th, 2007:
“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom Of Choice Act.”
FOCA will strip any and all restrictions on abortion that have helped to reduce the number of abortions slowly but gradually over the decades.
Senator Obama made a statement last night on the abortion topic that, and I paraphrase, he “supports limits on late term abortions / partial birth abortion”. He made himself look like he was trying to find common ground on the abortion topic and likely scored points with viewers of the debate.
NOT! That is hypocrisy at its utmost when LIFE is at stake. He consistently is against ANY and ALL restrictions on abortion as consistent with his 100% rating form NARAL and Planned Parenthood and support for the Freedom of Choice Act.
See my blog that tries to take a Christian / Catholic point of view on this election. It’s my “layperson’s journey” to the Catholic Church challenge its faithful in “Forming Conscience through Faithful Citizenship”.
http://blog.iowacatholicvote.com