It seems that Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden might finally drive good priests and bishops to publicly deny them the Holy Eucharist.
John F. Kennedy was the first presidential candidate to enunciate the idea that Catholicism might somehow be detrimental toward being a good American. In seeking to distance himself from the dark powers of Rome, he promised that he would always act “in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.”
Kennedy was roundly applauded for his stance, but in truth it should have sounded an alarm for all of America. His assertion suggested that the moral “dictates” of the Christian faith might somehow conflict with what was best for America; a nation that was founded on those very principles. He gave credence to the notion that one’s faith can be a mere cloak trotted out for political profit, or worse, to be shut up in private, never to see the light of day in public; especially if one is a Catholic. Indeed, the phrase, “I’m personally opposed to it, but . . .” has become a staple of liberal Catholic politicians across the fruited plains thanks to JFK.
Now, some might argue that the teachings of the Catholic Church are in opposition to those who founded this country, but if they are, it was not always so. Artificial birth control, for example, was forbidden among most Protestants until 1930. And we have seen all too clearly, the havoc wreaked upon this nation when the marital act is separated from procreation and used to objectify human beings. The idea that sexual relations should exist solely for pleasure outside the marriage bed has led to the breakup of the family unit and perversions such as the one the Church faced within the ranks of her own priesthood.
Many pro-life conservatives have issues with some teachings of the Church, like her positions against the death penalty and unjust war. Of course, these topics are open to the discretion of individual Catholics; but certain tenets of the faith are not. As Pope Benedict XVI explained, “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
And here is where the rubber meets the road for Catholics like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and their followers, to whom they are giving examples of grave moral error, or scandal, as it is known in the Church. And it seems that these scandalous men and women might finally drive good priests and bishops to publicly deny them the Holy Eucharist. Now, many good Catholics have been praying for just such a confrontation; but that’s not what the bishops want. They truly desire — in fact, it is their duty — to return lost sheep to the fold, if they can.
Yet, at the same time, the Church sees the withholding of Communion to correct grave error as an act of charity. As former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke points out: “If a person who has been admonished persists in public mortal sin and attempts to receive Communion, the minister of the Eucharist has the obligation to deny it to him. Why? Above all, for the salvation of that person, preventing him from committing a sacrilege.”
In another example of fraternal correction, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver delivered this stinging rebuke to Pelosi for her claim that her position on abortion was the result of a long study of Church history:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them . . . Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it – whether they're famous or not – fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.
Yet sadly, these and other admonitions seem to carry no weight with those who persist in identifying themselves with an organization whose membership is voluntary but whose precepts are obligatory. And so we are left with Catholics who flagrantly flaunt Church teaching and encourage others to do so, but fall all over themselves to genuflect before the Pope and kiss his ring.
It is interesting to note that in the last election, Methodist George W. Bush garnered more Catholic votes than did erstwhile altar boy John Kerry, a message that was no doubt lost on the Obama team who selected Joe Biden to deliver the goods this time around. It seems these voters had no problem reconciling Christian morality with the good of the country; and that their allegiance to their faith could and would never prevent that.
mailbox@lisafab.com
http://www.lisafab.com
Read more articles by Lisa Fabrizio
What has the Church proposed as a punishment for the grave crime of M.U.R.D.E.R. !!!!
a get out of hell confessional is all they propose ??? I can live with that.
The problem is that Nancy was RIGHT. she knows more about biblical history than the clowns wearing the robes. scary isn't it ??
Comment by Taguba | August 31, 2008
For those of you unfamiliar with Taguba, who was the SUBJECT of SOME OF my OBSERVATIONS in “Has the Left Become Completely Deranged?”, his comments contain a lot of CAPITALIZED WORDS and multiple exclamation points to show that the author of these remarks is a SERIOUS GUY!!!! But he can’t understand why all the guys won’t take him seriously when he tries to “debate”.
See below for a few additional pearls of wisdom from his comments after I submitted my article on why Obama won’t win the 2008 election, particularly his allegiance to papal authority:
*** Tag: ”is the pope "gullible" ?? he believes in Global Warming and that we should be good stewards of Gods creation. You and your ilk can keep pizzing on it, if you like, i choose to help the POPE. … You can find your big oil paid weather men and faux news paid "climate shills" to claim different, but the scientific communtiy says otherwise. So does that LIAR (as you call him) the Pope.”
Translation: The pope … I mean POPE … must be accepted as a scientific authority on the matter of global warming, or else you’re calling him a LIAR (no hyperbole here!!). However, when it comes to defining human life at the moment of conception and therefore abortion as murder, well, reasonable people can certainly disagree because, after all, the POPE is no scientific authority.
*** Tag: “ALL the peer reviewed studies on climate change Agree that People DO CONTRIBUTE to it. Not half or three quarters of all peer reviewed studies, ALL OF THEM. 100% agree.”
Translation: Taguba said ALL OF THEM (he even capitalized the words to show he's serious — SERIOUSLY!!) ALL OF THEM agree 100%. EVERY peer reviewed article, EVERY ONE!! NO EXCEPTIONS!! And yet some of us may still doubt the piercing analysis and evidence he’s offered?? This is SERIOUS!! SERIOUSLY!! What would the POPE say now that you’ve called him a LIAR?? What?? You didn’t read his peer-reviewed article?? SERIOUSLY!!
*** Tag: “People DO CONTRIBUTE to [global warming]. … Do you really think all the factories, all the cars, all the ships, trains, and trucks ont he planet dont contribute ?? seriously ??”
Translation. This is really serious. Just try not to think about the fact that "cause" and "contribute to" are two different concepts. People contribute to lots of things without necessarily "causing" something, or even being the primary contributor. One good Mexican meal won't hold a candle to your average bovine flatulence, in terms of carbon-based natural methane production. And you don’t even need a 100% peer reviewed article to understand this. Well, most of us understand this, anyway. Only a complete idiot could view something like cyclical climate change from the perspective where people are the constant, and nature is the independent variable, when looking at the notion of causality. Seriously!!
If none of this fails to convince you of the wisdom of tagboy’s analysis, then he has only one thing left for. You’re nothing but a “douchbag stinking retarded vermin with a nose full of coke,” or something like that (see “Why John Edwards’ Affair Matters”). And he says this because he’s SERIOUS. Really!! SERIOUSLY!
There are more tag-isms just as funny, and just as sad, but you get the idea.
Don't waste any time treating him seriously.
Doh!!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 31, 2008
Disagreement doesn't require slander, unless of course the intent is simply to get a reaction from people you disagree with, not actually discuss/debate an issue.
There seems to be a tendency on the part of the present day Left to treat every discussion like the Daily Kos or Huffington Post. It's clear they don't know how to have a real exchange of ideas, so they substitute invective for analysis. It doesn't even matter if they're consistent (in one case the pope is an infallible authority on man made global warming, in another he’s just one of “the clowns wearing the robes” on the subject of abortion [see Comment 2 above, and Comment 3])
On the Right we confront and condemn our extremists who would say things like “race matters”, or suggest that there is a “natural hierarchical social order.” But I’ve yet to see anyone on the Left condemn the excesses of a person who calls conservatives “douchbags stinking retarded vermin”.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 31, 2008
All that bile and yet STILL no response to the question. do you really think i am going to let you get away with calling the POPE a LIAR ?? he is the one who says that man is a contributor to global warming. Does he not speak for God? You are the one who is calling him a liar and a fool. Not Me. sorry but you are not dealing with a typical gop meat puppet here. i have a working brain and your pathetic attempts to divert, distract, and distort are not going to work.
The people who claim to represent the church should know more about chirch history than nancy pelosi, shouldn't they ?? they are clowns if they do not. At least i can justify why i called them clowns, how do you justify calling the POPE a lying dumbazz??
Comment by Taguba | August 31, 2008
What is it with this guy?
I'm not sure that very many Catholics honestly feel the Pope is where the buck stops on global warming. It's my understanding that the Church has for the most part liked to step back from science and let science play out before making a call, especially when it's not blatantly in conflict with scripture. Either way, Pope Benedict XVI wouldn't get my vote for best Pope. I'm sure however, the man is far more versed in the Catholic Church's history than Nancy Pelosi.(typing that sentence made me laugh)
As for abortion, I get my pro-life conviction on the matter from long rational thought, looking at it's devastating effects, it's sick origins, my family(got to stay honest) and of course my conscience. I also get it from scripture and yes, even the constitution. All of these things add up to a pro-life position without the Pope.
Oh, and the Pope does not speak for God. The Pope speaks for the Church. Jesus spoke for God, and the Church is to spread the word of Jesus.
When ever confused about certain members of the Church-lay or ordained-and there actions or opinions, even if it's the Pope, you just have to check the bible and then check in with GOD!! See to it that no one captivates you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ. Colossians 2:8
Comment by Notebartello | September 3, 2008