Not Sure How I Feel About This...

[Guest MikeSC]

Forty-eight Roman Catholic members of Congress have warned in a letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., that US bishops will revive anti-Catholic bigotry and severely harm the church if they deny Communion to politicians who support abortion rights.

 

The letter's signers, all Democrats, include at least three House members with strong antiabortion voting records.

 

"For many years Catholics were denied public office by voters who feared that they would take direction from the pope," they wrote. "While that type of paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past, attempts by church leaders today to influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice, which so many of us have worked so hard to overcome."

 

The three-page letter, dated May 10, was sent to McCarrick because he heads a task force of US bishops that is considering whether and how the church should take action against Catholic politicians whose public positions are at odds with Catholic doctrine.

 

McCarrick's spokesman, Susan Gibbs, said he would not comment on the letter. She said the seven-member task force is "listening to many different voices" and will grant the 48 House members' request for a meeting. "They will be heard; it just hasn't been arranged yet," she said.

 

A few of the nation's 300 Catholic bishops have caused a political furor this year by threatening to withhold the Eucharist, which Catholics believe is the body and blood of Christ, from presidential candidate Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts., and other Catholic officials who vote for abortion rights.

 

On May 5, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs issued a letter saying that ordinary parishioners should not receive Communion if they vote for politicians who support abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, or gay marriage.

 

McCarrick made clear last week in the Catholic Standard, the Washington archdiocese's newspaper, that he does not agree. "As a priest and bishop, I do not favor a confrontation at the altar rail with the Sacred Body of the Lord Jesus in my hand," he wrote. "There are apparently those who would welcome such a conflict, for good reasons, I am sure, or for political ones, but I would not."

 

Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, and Representative Nick Lampson, Democrat of Texas, circulated the letter among the 73 Catholic Democrats in the House. It was not circulated among Republicans or in the Senate, because it arose from meetings that began last year among a small number of Catholic Democrats in the House who wanted to talk privately about faith and public service, DeLauro said. "This was not about politics. It was about us and our church and our own faith," she said.

 

In their letter, the Democratic House members said they "firmly believe that it would be wrong for a bishop to deny the sacrament of Holy Communion to an individual on the basis of a voting record. We believe that such an action . . . would bring great harm to the church."

 

Noting that the Supreme Court has ruled that women have a constitutional right to choose an abortion, they said that members of Congress "who vote for legislation consistent with that mandate are not acting contrary to our positions as faithful members of the Catholic Church."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...bigotry?mode=PF

 

What I don't get is --- where do the politicians get off telling the Church who they should or should not give communion to? I thought it was the prerogative of the church alone who deserves and who does not deserve it.

 

And --- could this LEAD to governmental interference in church matters?

-=Mike

[The Metal Maniac 0]

where do the politicians get off telling the Church who they should or should not give communion to?

 

Especially in cases where the communion is being denied to those who simply aren't following what the catholic church wants. I don't agree that the Church should be forcing politicians to do anything, and this seems awfully close to trying, but hey - why should the church have to accept as members people who not only don't follow some of their basic beliefs, but are out in the government trying to make their conflicting beliefs law?

[NoCalMike 0]

If you are in public office, your concern should be with the american people, not the church. EOS.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This is still a completely political move by the Church. Not only does it come in the middle of a Presidential campaign involving a nominee who's Catholic and supports women's abortion rights, but the Church isn't taking similar moves on their other political stances, such as the death penalty, where Republicans would not come out smelling like roses.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ha. The church is making a bigger deal about America's Vietnam Hero taking communion than it did with priests boinking alter boys...

[Guest BDC]

It's not like the WANT that image to reappear anytime soon. Besides, isn't part of catholocism adherence to dogmatic law? I honestly wouldn't know, but if I'm wrong, please tell me.

[Guest Cerebus]

Ha. The church is making a bigger deal about America's Vietnam Hero taking communion than it did with priests boinking alter boys...

That is what really irks me about this. Sure this didn't come from the Pope but gimme a break. This Cardinal is giving us Catholics a bad name...like we could use it right now.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I've said it before, and I'll say it time and time again.

 

Religion and politics SHOULD NOT MIX. There is a reason for the seperation of church and state. Adhere to it.

 

Especially you, George Dubya.

[Guest MikeSC]

I've said it before, and I'll say it time and time again.

 

Religion and politics SHOULD NOT MIX. There is a reason for the seperation of church and state. Adhere to it.

 

Especially you, George Dubya.

Kerry's the one who's spent his years trying to use his Catholicism to get him elected in MA.

 

A religious President is hardly a bad thing. I'd rather have a President with religion than one with no moral compass whatsoever.

-=Mike

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

...the Church isn't taking similar moves on their other political stances, such as the death penalty, where Republicans would not come out smelling like roses.

Capital punishment is still justifiable under Catholicism.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

No, it's not.

 

Unless you're bringing up Levitical law, which is a moot argument (since hardly anybody--unless they want to "prove" their point about something--actually follows Levitical law), the church's doctrine is strongly against capital punishment. Ditto euthinasia.

 

However, this bishop is using this opportunity to take a "stand" and support the Republicans. So let him. He'll end up making Catholicism irrelevent in the political scene, hopefully.

 

And I'm saying that as a Catholic.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Read your Catechism.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I read it for 9 years, bunglehead. Read your Papal Bulls.

[2GOLD 0]

I'd rather have a Pesident who doesn't have a religion or doesn't practice it. Religion can get in the way of decisions it shouldn't be involved in.

 

And no, religion is not morals just in case someone tries to say that.

[Guest thebigjig]

I've said it before, and I'll say it time and time again.

 

Religion and politics SHOULD NOT MIX. There is a reason for the seperation of church and state. Adhere to it.

 

Especially you, George Dubya.

Kerry's the one who's spent his years trying to use his Catholicism to get him elected in MA.

 

A religious President is hardly a bad thing. I'd rather have a President with religion than one with no moral compass whatsoever.

-=Mike

So... are you saying that someone who isn't religious cannot distinguish between what is morally right and wrong?

 

I would rather have an atheist president (with no extreme atheist agenda to push, mind you...) than the Crusader for Christ himself, our lord and savior, Geeeyorge Dubyah Bush

[Guest MikeSC]

So... are you saying that someone who isn't religious cannot distinguish between what is morally right and wrong?

No --- but I'm saying religious people tend to a better job of it.

I would rather have an atheist president (with no extreme atheist agenda to push, mind you...) than the Crusader for Christ himself, our lord and savior, Geeeyorge Dubyah Bush

Where is this "Crusader for Christ" that you seem to see in Bush? He's a Christian, is proud of it, but hardly spends all of his time doing evangelical work.

-=Mike

[Guest thebigjig]

Oh come on... Bush pushes his religious agenda and wears his christianity on his sleeve just about as much as Joe Lieberman did with his religion back in 2000 as Gore's running mate. I think it's obvious that the religious right is a heavy influence on him considering its a major part of his constituency. I've heard reports in the past that Dubyah LITERALLY thought that God had chosen him, and you hear the same shit from Pat Robertson all the time.

 

I have no beef with Christians... or religious people for that matter. But Bush lets his religion drive his policy, and in my opinion, that is wrong

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh come on... Bush pushes his religious agenda and wears his christianity on his sleeve just about as much as Joe Lieberman did with his religion back in 2000 as Gore's running mate. I think it's obvious that the religious right is a heavy influence on him considering its a major part of his constituency. I've heard reports in the past that Dubyah LITERALLY thought that God had chosen him, and you hear the same shit from Pat Robertson all the time.

 

I have no beef with Christians... or religious people for that matter. But Bush lets his religion drive his policy, and in my opinion, that is wrong

How 'bout you bash Bush for what you heard he said --- not what you read he said, OK? Bashing people based on what they "reportedly" said is just sloppy.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Bloody fucking hell.

 

True, church related charitable organizations have benefited from having old Mr. Bush in office; often times they are Protestant.

 

HOWEVER--

 

Bush doesn't use religion as the jusitification for his policy. And, bigjig, if you look around snopes, Bush himself never thought that he was selected by God to be President. That was a nice urban legend, although there are some members of the religious right who believe that, which makes me laugh even more about society.

 

This whole Catholic dictating BS seems to be a weak attempt at cleaning it's image up after the whole molestation scandal, and, well, it sure seems to be working, doesn't it? I mean here: does a person TOTALLY and UNIVERSALLY have to agree with everything that the church dictates in order to receive Communion? Because if so, wouldn't that make us all fundamentalists? Just asking.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

This whole Catholic dictating BS seems to be a weak attempt at cleaning it's image up after the whole molestation scandal, and, well, it sure seems to be working, doesn't it? I mean here: does a person TOTALLY and UNIVERSALLY have to agree with everything that the church dictates in order to receive Communion? Because if so, wouldn't that make us all fundamentalists? Just asking.

At church last Sunday, we had a visiting priest who told us that yes, you will go to hell and you can't recieve communion if you don't agree with everything the church says.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I mean here: does a person TOTALLY and UNIVERSALLY have to agree with everything that the church dictates in order to receive Communion? Because if so, wouldn't that make us all fundamentalists? Just asking.

At church on Sunday, we had a priest who told us that if you don't believe in everything the church says, you cannot recieve communion, nor will you make it into heaven or even purgatory.

 

Hm.

[Guest MikeSC]

I mean here: does a person TOTALLY and UNIVERSALLY have to agree with everything that the church dictates in order to receive Communion? Because if so, wouldn't that make us all fundamentalists? Just asking.

At church on Sunday, we had a priest who told us that if you don't believe in everything the church says, you cannot recieve communion, nor will you make it into heaven or even purgatory.

 

Hm.

Whether you like it or not, that is ALL church's teachings. If you don't agree with them, then you shouldn't RECEIVE communion.

-=Mike

[Guest thebigjig]

interesting article from a RELIGIOUS news source... of course, this doesnt PROVE anything... just something to think about

 

February 12, 2003

George Bush's Theology: Does President Believe He Has Divine Mandate?

 

by Deborah Caldwell

Religion News Service

 

In the spring of 1999, as George W. Bush was about to announce his run for President, he agreed to be interviewed about his religious faith -- grudgingly. "I want people to judge me on my deeds, not how I try to define myself as a religious person of words."

 

It's hard to believe that's the same George W. Bush as now. Since taking office -- and especially in the last weeks -- Bush's personal faith has turned highly public, arguably more so than any modern president. What's important is not that Bush is talking about God but that he's talking about him differently. We are witnessing a shift in Bush's theology – from talking mostly about a Wesleyan theology of "personal transformation" to describing a Calvinist "divine plan" laid out by a sovereign God for the country and himself. This shift has the potential to affect Bush's approach to terrorism, Iraq and his presidency.

 

On Thursday (Feb.6) at the National Prayer Breakfast, for instance, Bush said, "we can be confident in the ways of Providence. ... Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God."

 

Calvin, whose ideas are critical to contemporary evangelical thought, focused on the idea of a powerful God who governs

"the vast machinery of the whole world."

 

Bush has made several statements indicating he believes God is involved in world events and that he and America have a divinely guided mission:

 

-- After Bush's Sept. 20, 2001, speech to Congress, Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson called the president and said: "Mr. President, when I saw you on television, I thought -- God wanted you there." "He wants us all here, Gerson," the president responded.

 

In that speech, Bush said, "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." The implication: God will intervene on the world stage, mediating between good and evil.

 

At the prayer breakfast, during which he talked about God's impact on history, he also said, he felt "the presence of the Almighty" while comforting the families of the shuttle astronauts during the Houston memorial service on Feb. 4.

 

-- In his State of the Union address last month, Bush said the nation puts its confidence in the loving God "behind all of life, and all of history" and that "we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. May He guide us now."

 

In addition to these public statements indicating a divine intervention in world events, there is evidence Bush believes his election as president was a result of God's acts.

 

A month after the World Trade Center attack, World Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted Tim Goeglein, deputy director of White House public liaison, saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Time magazine reported, "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." The net effect is a theology that seems to imply that God is intervening in events, is on America's side, and has chosen Bush to be in the White House at this critical moment.

 

"All sorts of warning signals ought to go off when a sense of personal chosenness and calling gets translated into a sense of calling and mission for a nation," says Robin Lovin, a United Methodist ethicist and professor of religion and political thought at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Lovin says what the president seems to be lacking is theological humility and an awareness of moral ambiguity.

 

Richard Land, a top Southern Baptist leader with close ties to the White House, argues that Bush's sense of divine oversight is part of why he has become such a good wartime leader. He brings a moral clarity and self-confidence that inspires Americans and scares enemies. "We don't

inhabit that relativist universe (of European leaders)," Land says. "We really believe some things are good and some things bad."

 

It's even possible that Bush's belief in America's moral rightness makes the country's military threats seem more genuine because the world thinks Bush is "on a mission."

 

Presidents have always used Scripture in their speeches as a source of poetry and morality, according to Michael Waldman, President Clinton's chief speechwriter, author of "POTUS Speaks" and now a visiting professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

 

Lincoln, he says, was the first president to use the Bible extensively in his speeches, but one of the main reasons was that his audience knew the Bible -- Lincoln was using what was then common language. Theodore Roosevelt, in his 1912 speech to the Progressive Party, closed with these words: "We stand at the edge of Armageddon." Carter, Reagan and Clinton all used Scripture, but Waldman says their use was more as a "grace note."

 

Bush is different, because he uses theology as the guts of his argument. "That's very unusual in the long sweep of American history," Waldman says.

 

Bush has clearly seen a divine aspect to his presidency since before he ran. Many Americans know the president had a religious conversion at age 39, when he, as he describes it, "came to the Lord" after a weekend of talks with the Rev. Billy Graham. Within a year, he gave up drinking and joined a men's Bible study group at First United Methodist Church in Midland, Texas. From that point on, he has often said, his Christian faith has grown.

 

Less well known is that, in 1995, soon after he was elected Texas governor, Bush sent a memo to his staff, asking them to stop by his office to look at a painting entitled "A Charge to Keep" by W.H.D. Koerner, lent to him by Joe O'Neill, a friend from Midland. The painting is based on the Charles Wesley hymn of the same name, and Bush told his staff he especially liked the second verse: "To serve the present age, my calling to fulfill; O may it all my powers engage to do my Master's will." Bush said those words represented their mission. "What adds complete life to the

painting for me is the message of Charles Wesley that we serve One greater than ourselves."

 

By 1999, Bush was saying he believed in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans." He talked of being inspired to run for president by a sermon delivered by the Rev. Mark Craig, pastor of Bush's Dallas congregation, Highland Park United Methodist Church.

 

Craig talked about the reluctance of Moses to become a leader. But, said Mr. Craig, then as now, people were "starved for leadership" -- leaders who sacrifice to do the right thing. Bush said the sermon "spoke directly to my heart and talked about a higher calling." But in 1999, as he prepared to run for president, he was quick to add in an interview: "Elections are determined by human beings."

 

Richard Land recalls being part of a group of about a dozen people who met after Bush's second inauguration as Texas governor in 1999.

 

At the time, everyone in Texas was talking about Bush's potential to become the next president. During the meeting, Land says, Bush said, "I believe God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK." Land points out that Bush didn't say that God actually wanted him to be president. He

said he believed God wanted him to be president.

 

During World War II, the American Protestant thinker Reinhold Niebuhr wrote about God's role in political decision-making. He believed every political leader and every political system falls short of absolute justice -- that the Allies didn't represent absolute right and Hitler didn't

represent absolute evil because all of us, as humans, stand under the ultimate judgment of God. That doesn't mean politicians can't make judgments based on what they believe is right; it does mean they need to understand that their position isn't absolutely morally clear.

 

"Sometimes Bush comes close to crossing the line of trying to serve the nation as its religious leader, rather than its political leader," says C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a clergy-led liberal lobbying group.

 

Certainly, European leaders seem to be bothered by Bush's rhetoric and it possibly does contribute to a sense in Islamic countries that Bush is on an anti-Islamic "crusade."

 

Radwan Masmoudi, executive director of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, worries about it. "Muslims, all over the world, are very concerned that the war on terrorism is being hijacked by right-wing fundamentalists, and transformed into a war, or at least a conflict, with Islam. President Bush is a man of faith, and that is a positive attribute, but he also needs to learn about and respect the other faiths, including Islam, in order to represent and serve all Americans."

 

In hindsight, even Bush's inaugural address presaged his emerging theology. He quoted a colonist who wrote to Thomas Jefferson that "We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" Then Bush said: "Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate, but the themes of this day he would know, `our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.'

 

"We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty, and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another. Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today; to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.

 

"This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."

[Guest thebigjig]

Bloody fucking hell.

 

True, church related charitable organizations have benefited from having old Mr. Bush in office; often times they are Protestant.

 

HOWEVER--

 

Bush doesn't use religion as the jusitification for his policy. And, bigjig, if you look around snopes, Bush himself never thought that he was selected by God to be President. That was a nice urban legend, although there are some members of the religious right who believe that, which makes me laugh even more about society.

 

This whole Catholic dictating BS seems to be a weak attempt at cleaning it's image up after the whole molestation scandal, and, well, it sure seems to be working, doesn't it? I mean here: does a person TOTALLY and UNIVERSALLY have to agree with everything that the church dictates in order to receive Communion? Because if so, wouldn't that make us all fundamentalists? Just asking.

So I guess I shouldnt take our president at his word when he recently stated during a speech that in Iraq, we are "doing Gods work" ?

[Guest MikeSC]

Bloody fucking hell.

 

True, church related charitable organizations have benefited from having old Mr. Bush in office; often times they are Protestant.

 

HOWEVER--

 

Bush doesn't use religion as the jusitification for his policy. And, bigjig, if you look around snopes, Bush himself never thought that he was selected by God to be President. That was a nice urban legend, although there are some members of the religious right who believe that, which makes me laugh even more about society.

 

This whole Catholic dictating BS seems to be a weak attempt at cleaning it's image up after the whole molestation scandal, and, well, it sure seems to be working, doesn't it? I mean here: does a person TOTALLY and UNIVERSALLY have to agree with everything that the church dictates in order to receive Communion? Because if so, wouldn't that make us all fundamentalists? Just asking.

So I guess I shouldnt take our president at his word when he recently stated during a speech that in Iraq, we are "doing Gods work" ?

We are trying to bring liberty and improve the life of the Iraqis.

 

What would constitute "God's work" to you if that does not?

 

World of difference between "doing God's work" (which would be doing good) and "God put me here to do this"

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Someone help me: I'm agreeing with Mike again. It's a very dirty feeling indeed.

 

As I tried to bring up in the religious fundamentalism thread that I started, it is almost a godly task to try and change a belief system. The problem is not with the actual people, it is a select few that have created a fanatical twist on religion that justifies their own moral code: to destroy America. And because of the lack of support from it's own government, it's when you wind up with your Osamas, Saddams, and Talibans. People buy into the philosophy in order to have something to believe in. Scary? Yes.

 

So when Bush says we're doing God's work, essentially, the task at hand is of Biblical proportions.

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled vegatative state...

[Guest Vitamin X]

So... are you saying that someone who isn't religious cannot distinguish between what is morally right and wrong?

No --- but I'm saying religious people tend to a better job of it.

Exactly how and why is that? I've never seen that proven before.

 

Are you telling me an atheist president (which I doubt will ever happen in our narrow minded society) would lack the moral fortitude necessary to make the right decisions?

 

I would think that not believing in an afterlife would make every person's life on earth much more valuable, that's just my opinion though.

[Guest Brian]

They have dogma and stuff, but an atheist can be just as moral. It's about right and wrong.

[Guest MikeSC]

So... are you saying that someone who isn't religious cannot distinguish between what is morally right and wrong?

No --- but I'm saying religious people tend to a better job of it.

Exactly how and why is that? I've never seen that proven before.

 

Are you telling me an atheist president (which I doubt will ever happen in our narrow minded society) would lack the moral fortitude necessary to make the right decisions?

 

I would think that not believing in an afterlife would make every person's life on earth much more valuable, that's just my opinion though.

Considering that almost every religion places heavy belief in your actions on Earth dictating your place in the afterlife, I'm not sure your argument is that valid here.

 

People without a bedrock moral principle are easily susceptible to situational ethics --- which is bad.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Where is this "Crusader for Christ" that you seem to see in Bush? He's a Christian, is proud of it, but hardly spends all of his time doing evangelical work.

          -=Mike

Bush is about this far away from saying Americans are God's people.

 

He finally backed off on the God loves America rhetoric on National Day of Prayer a few weeks ago by now saying that God finds his people "in all tribes." However, Bush's ties to religion have gone beyond appreciating and studying his religion because he believes it saved his life. It's now linked, however faintly, with his policy. This became evident after 9/11.

 

Plus, there's no documented evidence that any of the non-Christian faith-based organizations that have requested money have ever gotten any.