No Communion For You!

Discussion in 'Bill Archer's Guestbook' started by IntheNet, Nov 16, 2008.

  1. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A vote for Obama is a vote for excommunication!

    S.C. priest scolds Obama voters
    South Carolina State
    http://www.thestate.com/local/story/589290.html
    A Greenville priest who told parishioners those who cast ballots for President-elect Barack Obama risk placing themselves “outside of the full communion of Christ’s church” is simply enunciating church teaching and has the full support of the Diocese of Charleston, a spokesman said Thursday. The provocative letter from the Rev. Jay Scott Newman to members of St. Mary’s Catholic Church has sparked some controversy and yet another conversation about faith and public policy. “Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil,” Newman said in the letter posted on the Greenville church’s Web site, www.stmarysgvl.org, “and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law.”
     
  2. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    And the wingnut priest's diocese responds:

    "Statement of Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin, Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston
    This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, 'Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.' The Catechism goes on to state: 'In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.'

    Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

    The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church.

    We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.

    I ask also for your continued prayers for me and for the Diocese of Charleston."


    Get your dirty, grubby politics out of my religion. I am fine with the church carrying the pro-life banner -- in all its forms. Therefore, I don't want the Church telling someone they can't go to communion of the support President bush's Iraq policy or waterboarding or anything else. I don't want the Church telling me I can't take communion if I vote for a politician that supports the death penalty.

    Had Jesus simply attacked the politics and the politicians of his day, he might have been effective with the crowds he was speaking to but he would have then been a footnote in history. He didn't advocate for or against politicians and his Church shouldn't either. They should stick to their message and hold that message above politics.
     
  3. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999

    I agree mostly. The abortion thing bothers me though because it is at odds with Church teachings whereas you can find examples in scriputre supporting war and the death penalty.
     
  4. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Where exactly do you find opposition to abortion in scripture? At best, there are vague references and most of those are in the Old Testament. Jesus never once broached the subject and it certainly was occurring during his time.

    Again, I don't have a problem with the Church teaching that abortion is wrong. That it is a sin. What I detest is when they stick their noses into politics and suggest that you shouldn't vote for a certain candidate or that voting a certain way has some consequences for your position in the Church. There is nothing less Christ-like than getting mixed up in politics.

    I think the evangelical movement is starting to see the backlash from it and I don't want my church anywhere near it.
     
  5. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You know the answer already; why ask? Yet, if you ask a simple question you'll likely get an even simple answer in response:God’s own finger wrote in stone the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13), VI: "You shall not murder". How much clearer could a scripture reference against abortion be?

    The Lord "never once broached" quite a bit in life yet we interpret truth from his actions for quite a lot now many years from his teachings - perhaps you can explain how denying a child in the womb life, via selfishness of the host, is in accord with Christ's words; "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10). Certainly every child, from conception to birth, has a right to that life not determined by the selfishness of others.

    Bull! Baptist churches and those churches involved with Black Liberation Theology - to say nothing about Rev. Wright and his gang of thugs - functioned as defacto Obama campaign sites during the campaign and extolled their "faithful" to vote for Obama and you and yours said nothing about them nor condemned their political leanings and/or involvements. Now, however, you take exception to those clergy taking a stand against Obama? Wow... practice moral relativism much?

    The pivotal 2011 campaign of return to morality will be the backlash you'll remember.
     
  6. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Glad to see that you are now registering your objection to the death penalty and the war in Iraq. Welcome aboard. I love when "Christians" rely on the old testament to support Jesus teachings. ;)

    Way to take scripture way, way out of context. Is that the best you can do to support the argument that scripture tells us abortion is wrong? Jesus was talking about walking, talking, living adults in this passage. The message is that there is one path to heaven and it is to follow him -- the shepard through the gate whose voice you know -- not the stranger who is nothing but a thief.

    As he often discussed, Jesus was not showing much concern here for life on earth in any form. He was talking about eternal life. I assume you believe that that eternal life is available to an aborted fetus, no?

    Honestly, I heard nothing about this. Do you have some links that discuss pastors using the pulpit on a Sunday morning to advance a candidate? If yes, then I would be happy to look at them and happy to condemn the practice. No moral relativism here but I understand why you would accuse me of that since you find it to be common practice.

    Glad to see you could end your screed on a humorous note. Well done.
     
  7. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Avoid the point much?

    And the way that you do that following the Lord - in your moronic view - is to support a policy that stands idly by while infant's arms, legs, and head are hacked off to end its life? Is that the testimony and "path to Heaven" you plan to follow? Where are the Civil Rights of the unborn in your view?

    If your misled view of "life on earth" is one in which Jesus ignored and was "not showing much concern," then why did God even bother to redeem that life with his Son? You cannot ignore the eternal life or the life on earth the begins in the womb - they are one in the same and are causations of the Father. To say that the teachings of Christ would permit something as horrendous as abortion shows your secularism and rank disregard of basic Christian understanding.

    You serious? The Wall Street Journal reported on this throughout campaign; you conveniently chose to ignore it. Wonder why?
     
  8. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    You are confusing "making" with "ignoring."

    Nope. You are inserting words in my mouth and I would kindly ask you not to insert anything in my mouth. It creeps me out. I have never advocated any such policy and I have specifically said that the church can and should maintain a position against abortion. My point all along is that they should butt out of politics. From the Pope on down, the church was consistently against the war in Iraq. That was proper. They didn't, however, threaten to withhold communion or take other punative actions against those who voted for George bush. I would have been steadfastly against any such action by the church even though I agreed wholeheartedly with their opposition to the war. Give to Cesear what is his. Jesus made it clear that he had absolutely zero interest in sticking his nose into the politics of the day. He only sought to deliver his message directly to the people. That should be the role of his Church today as well.

    Again, you seem to be having a problem with context. I wasn't talking about the complete set of Jesus' teachings. Clearly, he spent a lot of time on caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, helping the poor -- things that your brand of Christianity has unfortunately dropped way down the list of priorities. I was talking about the specific passage that YOU cited. Jesus was talking AT John 10 about the messenger to follow to attain eternal life. There is simply no connection to what you used and the abortion argument.

    Again, I have been clear that the Church holds a reasonable and proper position on abortion. I think, based on the teachings of Jesus, that they have their priorities mixed up in how much emphasis they give the issue compared to other things that Jesus DID spend a significant amount of time discussing here on earth. I'm also admittedly still bitter at the way they have cavalierly extracted themselves from the sex scandals and then have the audacity to talk about withholding communion from those who simply vote for a candidate for a wide variety of reasons.

    Perhaps you don't find a grown man using his position of authority to plow a child's ass all that troubling. Well, that is probably unfair. But, I haven't seen you outraged that the conduct became known and then the Church simply turned a blind eye and moved the scum around to other parishes where they could do the same thing again. Ok, this is a rant but "moral authority" is a hole that they are still a long way from digging out of.

    I don't read the Wall Street Journal. I do read a lot, and honestly, I never came across a story about this. Before you start with the liberal media stuff, I can't imagine that this was a big or wide spread story if I didn't come across anything addressing or defending the actions -- even in the liberal media.

    So, I ignored nothing and again, I am happy to condemn the practice of any church encouraging a particular political outcome. You can pray for the wisdom of each voter. You can pray for the wisdom of our elected leaders. You should not pray for or encourage anyone to vote a particular way or punish those who do. By "you" I mean the church.
     
  9. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999
    Chris you would have to go out of your way to not think that Jesus was against abortion. I'm not religious, I just find it odd when christian liberals try to weasel out of this and say things like "jesus never broached the subject". Not in those words he didn't but scripture makes it clear that 1. Life begins at conception and 2. Mudering innocents is wrong

    so you can make the (silly) argument that Scripture doesn't literally discuss abortion but you can't deny that abortion and scripture are incompatible without being intellectually dishonest (and there isn't much intellectual about religion I'll concede)

    Psalm 51:5 – “I was born a sinner – yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.”

    Jeremiah 1:5 – “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.”

    1 Corinthians 6:12-13 – “Our bodies were not made for sexual immorality. They were made for the Lord, and the Lord cares about our bodies.”

    Isaiah 44:1-2 - "Thus says the Lord who made you And formed you from the womb"

    Job 10:8-12 - "Your hands have made me and fashioned me, An intricate unity; Yet You would destroy me. Remember, I pray, that You have made me like clay. And will You turn me into dust again? Did You not pour me out like milk, And curdle me like cheese, Clothe me together with bone and sinews? You have granted me life and favor and Your care has preserved my spirit"


    Luke 1:39 - "And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.”

    Exodus 21:25 - "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
     
  10. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    I'm apparently not making myself clear.

    One more time. For the record. [Biden voice] let me say this again [/Biden voice].

    I do NOT have a problem with the Church's position on abortion. I do not have a problem with the Church teaching that abortion is a sin and that it is wrong. I do NOT deny that the basis of the Church's teaching can be gleaned from the bible.

    I adamantly protest my church mixing themselves up in politics by suggesting that we should vote a certain way or that we should be subject to punishment for voting a certain way.

    My reference to the lack of a specific teaching from Jesus regarding abortion (which was certainly practiced long before he was born to this earth and was continuing while he was here) is NOT to suggest that he is the pro-choice savior. I have never suggested that. The only reason I bring the lack of any discussion specifically on abortion in the Bible is to demonstrate that people like ITN place far too much weight on a single issue and then judge others accordingly.

    Jesus actually spent about 99% of his time talking about people and how we should act towards each other and our ultimate salvation AFTER we each exit the womb.

    My point has been confined to the idiot priest who is the topic of this thread. You have one candidate who advocates better care for the sick, who advocates better treatment for those who are imprisoned, who advocates food and shelter for the poor, who advocates doing whatever we can short of banning abortions to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and to give those mothers who decide to have unplanned children the most in terms of support to help them. Then you have one who is essentially the same as bush on the topic. Abortions had been decreasing for more than two decades including the periods when Carter and Clinton were president. Abortions are on the rise in the age of the most "pro-life" president we have had.

    Btw, I would be every bit as critical of a priest who suggests that Catholics who voted for McCain should not receive communion because of his support of the war or his jokes about killing people in Iran with bombs and cigarettes.

    The point no one has addressed is that this Church is supposed to be following the teachings of Jesus Christ -- the guy who purposely NEVER got involved with the politics of the day. When presented with a question to trap him on the unjust results of the tax system in place, he expressly said, "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. Give unto the Lord what is his." Why is that so hard for modern Christians to understand and follow?
     
  11. Eric B

    Eric B Member

    Feb 21, 2000
    the LBC
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And then he proceeded to cause a riot in a politically-charged time and place, which is why the Romans wanted him dead. He avoided the trap you mention because his political targets were the ruling Jewish classes themselves, not the Roman occupation which is what most Jews thought would be a proper Messiah's target.

    Because Christianity stopped being about Jesus with the Council of Nicea.
     
  12. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999
    woah sorry man, I made the mistake of thinking you were directly responding to me when I said that abortion and scripture are incompatible. The reason I thought you were directly responding to me was because....you were directly responding to me. I'll try not to make that mistake again!
     
  13. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    I was responding to you and apparently my point still isn't getting through. You said that abortion was clearly against the church's teachings and then said that there were specific passages in scripture supporting the death penalty and war. My response was:

    Where exactly do you find opposition to abortion in scripture? At best, there are vague references and most of those are in the Old Testament. Jesus never once broached the subject and it certainly was occurring during his time.


    From that, you somehow got that I was being intellectually dishonest and that I apparently do not think that Jesus would have been against abortion.

    What would be intellectually dishonest would be for me to continue saying -- as I always have -- that it is fine and right for the Church to oppose abortion and to consider it a sin and then suggest that Jesus would not be against abortion.

    Jesus had about three years from the time that he actively became Jesus the teacher to the time of the crucifixtion. I doubt that he purposely spent most of those three years teaching the less important lessons and then left us to infer the most important. And yet, there are Christians like ITN who assign a huge weight to the abortion issue to the natural exclusion of some of the things that Jesus expressly addressed.

    Some in the Catholic Church are doing the same thing now. At the recent bishops conference, they spent a huge amount of time talking about Obama and abortion. Earth to Cardinal George (who I have great respect for by the way), our country has the potential to be heading into a time of great need with a big up tick in the poor and needy. Lots of people do not and will not have decent health coverage and will suffer greatly when they get sick. Dear Cardinal George. Please, please, please, prepare yourself for the potential of much more human suffering and get your nose out of politics.
     
  14. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Okay, I am getting into dangerous ground here because I am certainly not an expert on the Bible . . . I'm a Catholic. :D

    But my understanding (from 12 years of Catholic school) was that the Jewish leaders were not political "targets" of Jesus. He simply taught on his own for himself, essentially ignoring them. It was they who felt threatened leading to Jesus trial before the Sanhedrin.

    Again, I think this fits into my argument. Jesus didn't try to impose himself upon the established Church. Surely, he could have become one of the pharisees if he wanted to. When asked about the church at the time, he made his famous "destroy it and I will rebuild it in three days" speech. Of course, that was not a threat to the establishment, he was talking about his own physical body and his ressurection.
     
  15. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why do you think that is? There are Jews who assign a huge weight to the holocaust issue. Why do you think that is? Here... think of it this way: For a long time slaves in this country were not considered human; even the Compromise reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 granted them only three-fifths representation of all other persons. Terrible huh? Fell bad about that? So how would you feel, honestly, if a group received zero representation? None? That is the representation a fetus receives as a measure of our Civil Rights in this nation. You bet there are Christians like ITN who assign a huge weight to the abortion issue. If Obama continues his record on abortion millions more will die in the greatest holocaust of humanity; our war on the unborn. And if fighting that war means excommunicating a few faux Christians or faux Catholics for tacit support of abortion or their vote of support of an abortion enabler, I fail to see the harm.
     
  16. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    The number of abortions increased for the first time in two decades under the stewardship of george bush. Your way is not working. More are being killed. If you are serious, work for the reduction in unwanted pregnancies.
     
  17. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [​IMG]

    Actually Chris you are absolutely wrong here and I can prove that using the government's own statistics (from the Centers for Disease Control). Under President Bush, the rate of abortion, in the United States, has been reduced or stayed level for the period tracked (see CDC graph above) for 1993-2003 (assuming 2000-2003) for the beginning of Bush's term. For the remainder of Bush's term (2003-current), abortion has fallen to its lowest level in three decades (percentage):

    U.S. Abortion Rate Falls to Lowest Level in Decades
    New report does find medical abortions on the increase
    http://health.usnews.com/usnews/hea...ion-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-in-decades.htm
    By Kathleen Doheny
    Posted 1/17/08
    (US News & World Report) -- The U.S. abortion rate has reached its lowest level in three decades, according to a new report released Thursday. The actual number of abortions dropped to a new low, with 1.2 million abortions in 2005, compared to a high of 1.6 million abortions in 1990.


    I can tell you definitively, based on his record in Illinois, that Obama will loosen the rules for abortion and make them far easier to obtain, thus leading to more death.
     
  18. Eric B

    Eric B Member

    Feb 21, 2000
    the LBC
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Source? While the CDC's numbers only go through 2004, it appears that the number abortions have been flat in the first GWB adminstration. I have heard that teen pregnancies might be up for the first time in a long time, but that could also be attributed to increases in immigrant population.

    EDIT: ITN beat me to it...
     
  19. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    Chris's numbers came from a small-ish study that has since been trumped by larger studies.
     
  20. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Yep. My bad. Still, the point is still valid . . . I think. There was dramatic reduction during the Clinton years and then small, almost flat line trends at least in bush's first term. ITN posted something about the back end but it just says that they have fallen to the lowest number in 3 decades but looking at the chart, the numbers were almost at the lowest point in 3 decades when bush took office.

    Simply having a fire and brimstone president is not the answer. I would be curious as to the reasons for the steep decline throughout the Clinton years. Nevertheless, the chart provides definitive proof that we can achieve significant reductions in abortions with a pro choice president and we can see steady increases with a pro-life president like Reagan.

    So, perhaps the lesson is that we don't focus our attention solely on Roe v. Wade but on those things that have helped reduce the numbers by several hundred thousand a year.
     

Share This Page