http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_po/giuliani_communion

 

:dancingpa I can't imagine this sparking much debate; I anticipate most people agreeing with me, but I just felt like posting this article.

I agreed with Archbishop Burke in Kerry's case and he is right again, IMO. I am not Catholic, but I don't see how a member of the church can take Giuliani's position on abortion and not expect a backlash.

 

It's unfortunate when religious organizations do treat prominent members differently than the rest of us and it's unfortunate when politicians join churches whose basic doctrine they cannot support.

This, on the heels of the religous right vowing to have a third party candidate if Guiliani wins the nomination might start snowballing into trouble for Guiliani...

To be fair to the Catholic Church, the teachings are not vague. The consequences are clear. The difference between denying Giuliani or Kerry is that they publicly make their positions on such controversial issues a known fact, while most "common" Catholics can keep their true feelings hidden. A priest/bishop/cardinal, can only go with what they know.

To be fair to the Catholic Church, the teachings are not vague. The consequences are clear. The difference between denying Giuliani or Kerry is that they publicly make their positions on such controversial issues a known fact, while most "common" Catholics can keep their true feelings hidden. A priest/bishop/cardinal, can only go with what they know.

:thumb: I agree. It is one thing to disagree with your church and quietly work for changes from within it, but it is an entirely different thing for a government official to publicly oppose basic church doctrine.

To be fair to the Catholic Church, the teachings are not vague. The consequences are clear. The difference between denying Giuliani or Kerry is that they publicly make their positions on such controversial issues a known fact, while most "common" Catholics can keep their true feelings hidden. A priest/bishop/cardinal, can only go with what they know.

 

RM - I agree in principle. However, we all know people in our parish that fall into a category that should deny them the sacrament and yet they continue to receive it. I find it hard to believe that the priests are not aware of this for at least a few of them.

 

Call me cynical....

RM - I agree in principle. However, we all know people in our parish that fall into a category that should deny them the sacrament and yet they continue to receive it. I find it hard to believe that the priests are not aware of this for at least a few of them.

 

Call me cynical....

 

 

Question, how many times have you been thought to carry one opinion, based on incomplete information? We can make no assumptions of a person's heart. That is between them and God. If a "common" parishoner can be proven to carry pro-choice sinage at rallys, etc., the Church can definitely make a decision based upon evidence. The problem you're presenting is determining a private matter between a person and God, and the principles of the Church. If it's an opinion carried quietly, without outward signs, how can the Church "know". The Church doesn't excommunicate based upon assumptions. BTW...what we "know" of our fellow parishioners based upon their history, is often a matter that's been resolved through confession. What we "know" based upon first hand experience is a matter of ethical debate for you, as to what to impart, and to whom.

Question, how many times have you been thought to carry one opinion, based on incomplete information? We can make no assumptions of a person's heart. That is between them and God. If a "common" parishoner can be proven to carry pro-choice sinage at rallys, etc., the Church can definitely make a decision based upon evidence. The problem you're presenting is determining a private matter between a person and God, and the principles of the Church. If it's an opinion carried quietly, without outward signs, how can the Church "know". The Church doesn't excommunicate based upon assumptions. BTW...what we "know" of our fellow parishioners based upon their history, is often a matter that's been resolved through confession. What we "know" based upon first hand experience is a matter of ethical debate for you, as to what to impart, and to whom.

 

 

What are the rules regarding receiving communion if you've remarried without having the previous marriage annulled? I'm truly asking because I THINK I know the answer but am not 100% sure.

What are the rules regarding receiving communion if you've remarried without having the previous marriage annulled? I'm truly asking because I THINK I know the answer but am not 100% sure.

 

 

It is my understanding that they would be the same as in this case. But I am not sure the priest would necessarily know right of the bat, same with a lay Eucharistic minister.

 

 

In this case the person is pretty easy to identify on account of his fame.

It is my understanding that they would be the same as in this case. But I am not sure the priest would necessarily know right of the bat, same with a lay Eucharistic minister.

 

 

In this case the person is pretty easy to identify on account of his fame.

 

No argument. However, not every parish is big enough that the priest doesn't know his parishoners and their situations. In no way do I want my priest determining if I'm eligible for communion based off of my thoughts. Heck, if he realizes I think he's lacking in communication skills, I might be in trouble.

 

My original point dealt with general inconsistencies and not the issue of abortion views. The issue of divorce and annullment is a perfect example of where I see priests ignorning the Catholic teachings. Thus, I'm not as impressed when they "take a stand."

No argument. However, not every parish is big enough that the priest doesn't know his parishoners and their situations. In no way do I want my priest determining if I'm eligible for communion based off of my thoughts. Heck, if he realizes I think he's lacking in communication skills, I might be in trouble.

 

My original point dealt with general inconsistencies and not the issue of abortion views. The issue of divorce and annullment is a perfect example of where I see priests ignorning the Catholic teachings. Thus, I'm not as impressed when they "take a stand."

 

 

Also not every individual who is at said church was married there or is at a church where they know their past. If you have issue with a priest applying the teachings of the church when they have the information with which to do so then I would consider a change in denomination.

 

I am divorced, however my marriage has not been annulled yet. I, at this point have not remarried and as such I am still elligible to receive communion. Any Catholic who takes their faith seriously should respect the sacrament for what it is and know when they should and should not come forward. I say this in regards to the mechanical Catholics who just show up, sleep through mass and shuffle forward for communion when everyone else is going up there.

 

Were I to remarry before my marriage is annulled, which I shall not do because I will remarry in the church, I would not go up to receive communion until the annullment was granted.

 

I feel that any politician who is aware of their faith and politics being in conflict would should have the decency to know better than to be the catalyst for this sort of thing.

Also not every individual who is at said church was married there or is at a church where they know their past. If you have issue with a priest applying the teachings of the church when they have the information with which to do so then I would consider a change in denomination.

 

.

 

I don't believe for one second that you actually believe your last sentence.

 

Secondly, I have never typed that a priest should be omniscient. I AM saying that not all priests apply the doctrine 100% of the time when they KNOW of certain situations.

 

I would actually be curious to see if this particular priest is 100% consistent. I hope that he is.

I'll be the bad guy here, I think it's a slippery slope.

 

What about a woman who is on the Pill? Does she get communion? I think the Church has many antiquated stances, and using the Free Will that God gave you to decide where you fall on said issues should be trumpeted....not excommunicated (in this day and age).

 

Reading this, and then seeing the "hooray" responses here, it isn't hard to see why: a) the number of practicing Catholics in this Country is declining; b) the number of parishoners in this Country that have migrated to non-denominational services; c) Catholics are so often painted as elitist and close-minded; d) only 33% of Catholics claim to attend a Mass every week down from 44% in 1987.

I'll be the bad guy here, I think it's a slippery slope.

 

What about a woman who is on the Pill? Does she get communion? I think the Church has many antiquated stances, and using the Free Will that God gave you to decide where you fall on said issues should be trumpeted....not excommunicated (in this day and age).

 

Reading this, and then seeing the "hooray" responses here, it isn't hard to see why: a) the number of practicing Catholics in this Country is declining; b) the number of parishoners in this Country that have migrated to non-denominational services; c) Catholics are so often painted as elitist and close-minded; d) only 33% of Catholics claim to attend a Mass every week down from 44% in 1987.

 

The pill is not only contraceptive but it can actually be abortifacient. Simply because the church's stance on a particular issue may seen antiquated, is no reason or excuse to defy the laws of the church. God gave us free will to do as we choose, however, I do not see free will as being a justifiaction for making an improper choice.

I don't believe the church should ever deny communion to anybody who asks to receive it. Well, maybe politicians, but other than that....