Brother, I'll ask you to re-read or to not read into anything.

 

RM assumed I was talking about abortion in my original post. Not true.

 

I then clarified it by saying that I believe there are priests who knowingly give communion to people who have not had a previous marriage annulled ie picking and choosing or simply ignoring the rules. Therefore, if priests are not consistent then everything is for naught. You then invited me to find a new denomination, thus, my bewilderment.

 

 

I admit I have a problem when a priest does that. Alas I know not what is in everyone's hearts thus I am actually far less judgemental than I have come off here. All I am saying is that if a priest applying the rules is problematic in your mind then maybe Catholicism doesn't really suit you. In the end those that do and don't are known only to the priests and those they are dispensing the Sacred Eucharist to. Just because it occurs doesn't mean that those that do apply them should be looked upon with scorn for those actions.

 

For what it is worth I concur that this particular issue is more political than anything else. While the Bishop is well within Canon Law on this matter, his making a big deal of it publicly makes it a political issue.

All I am saying is that if a priest applying the rules is problematic in your mind then maybe Catholicism doesn't really suit you. .

 

 

I must admit that you amaze me. Really.

 

Where in the world did I say a priest applying the rules bothers me? You keep either a)putting words in my mouth or b)not reading what I actually say.

 

A or B?

I must admit that you amaze me. Really.

 

Where in the world did I say a priest applying the rules bothers me? You keep either a)putting words in my mouth or b)not reading what I actually say.

 

A or B?

C) Peprock can read your mind.

C) Peprock can read your mind.

 

..and my heart, apparently.

..and my heart, apparently.

 

 

Shouldn't you be on the phone registering with The Vineyard?

C) Peprock can read your mind.

 

 

Yeah, we'll go with that. :thumb:

No, I don't think that religion belongs behind closed doors. I have no problem with the Bishop speaking out on moral issues. He has a duty to do so. It is when he chooses to single out someone because they are running for office that I have a problem. Does he make a public announcement about each person he plans to refuse communion?

 

I guess what I am trying to say is, if you can, imagine trying to explain to God on judgment day: “I knew it was gravely immoral so I did not practice it myself, but I did vote for it.” You cannot separate your faith from your actions in any sphere.

So if Clines caught a boy with a condom he'd be suspended? Is that what you'd define as "not mak(ing) it acceptable?" Let me simply say I doubt that would happen. How can we possibly accept such objectivity when artificial contraception is against the doctrine? Does Clines get them on some list so that they can't accept communion at the next school mass? Why not?

 

I guess you win; I don't know the answer. Definently Clines should tell Father Fitzgerald and let him deal with it, the best that he can.

Saw a talking head railing on how they wished religion would get out of politics. Translation: They only want the deciding factors in casting your votes to agree with what they think should be the deciding factors.

 

Funny if the views supported Hillary or Obama, this person would have been all for that being another reason to vote for them. But since a good portion of Christian positions stand against those that support abortion, she thought religion needed to be out of politics.

I guess what I am trying to say is, if you can, imagine trying to explain to God on judgment day: “I knew it was gravely immoral so I did not practice it myself, but I did vote for it.” You cannot separate your faith from your actions in any sphere.

 

Excellent statement. Moral Absolutes are called that because they are absolute. They do not change to suit the whims of society. If they did, they would not be absolutes.

Saw a talking head railing on how they wished religion would get out of politics. Translation: They only want the deciding factors in casting your votes to agree with what they think should be the deciding factors.

 

Funny if the views supported Hillary or Obama, this person would have been all for that being another reason to vote for them. But since a good portion of Christian positions stand against those that support abortion, she thought religion needed to be out of politics.

 

Saw the same show. She was talking about the Bishop. I think he is using his religios position to push a political agenda. Did you also see George Will talking about "values voters". He finds the expression insulting, as do I. Everyone votes their values. If mine don't match yours it doesn't mean that I don't have any. I happen to agree with you on abortion, but there is very little else that I can find in the Republican Party to agree with. My values and religion lead me in another direction.

Question....aren't religious leaders supposed to use their position to influence the political arena? They're not politicians themselves, but it seems to me that it is their job to be forthwright and vocal about the application of morals and ethics of every part of our lives.

 

I always was confused when people say that religious leaders should keep their thoughts to themselves. :confused:

Saw the same show. She was talking about the Bishop. I think he is using his religios position to push a political agenda. Did you also see George Will talking about "values voters". He finds the expression insulting, as do I. Everyone votes their values. If mine don't match yours it doesn't mean that I don't have any. I happen to agree with you on abortion, but there is very little else that I can find in the Republican Party to agree with. My values and religion lead me in another direction.

And I can see that other direction. I can agree with so many things on the Democrat social agenda of helping the poor. But to me, those things don't overcome their lack of concern for the killing of babies.

 

Now, I think if the Republican party would attack abortion from two fronts, 1)overturning Roe v Wade; 2) providing more services for those who are living in poverty so that abortion is not the best choice for them.

Question....aren't religious leaders supposed to use their position to influence the political arena? They're not politicians themselves, but it seems to me that it is their job to be forthwright and vocal about the application of morals and ethics of every part of our lives.

 

I always was confused when people say that religious leaders should keep their thoughts to themselves. :confused:

 

It seems for some of the political leaders, only if they agree with their position.

 

I am sure the Republican camp is not happy and having some turning of the stomach over Dr. Dobson's remarks about Rudy G.

Question....aren't religious leaders supposed to use their position to influence the political arena? They're not politicians themselves, but it seems to me that it is their job to be forthwright and vocal about the application of morals and ethics of every part of our lives.

 

I always was confused when people say that religious leaders should keep their thoughts to themselves. :confused:

 

I don't have any problem with religious leaders using their influence on policy. It is using their religious function (i.e. communion) against individuals that gives me a problem. As nearly as I can tell, neither Rudy or John Kerry asked for communipn from the Bishop. He is using communion as a way to disuade people from voting for Catholic polititians that don't toe the line. I hope that the Bishop will speak forcefully and often about abortion. Making public announcements about Catholics that he is not counselling or having any pastoral relationship with seems like a political statement not a pastoral one.