Pro-lifers will hold their noses and vote for Giuliani if it comes to that. Judges nominated by G would be preferred by them to judges nominated by a D.
=====================

True that Kim. If the choice is between pure evil and kinda evil, I'd vote for kinda evil.

The American Catholic Church is pretty much a joke (and I was a "cradle Catholic"-- now I simply consider myself a theist). More than half of American Catholics are pro-Abortion. They should all be excommunicated, as should any Catholic who has ever voted for a Democrat and not attoned for that grevious sin. If you vote for a Democrat the blood of 50 million innocent humans is on your hands.

Pope John Paul II personaly knew the horrors of leftist ideology. He was instrumental, along with Ronald Regean for destroying it in eastern Europe. He should have defrocked and excommunicated the majority of the Catholic religious leaders in America, too. He didn't probably because the church gets a lot of cash from its US membership.

The bishop wouldn't give communion to Hillary, Obama or the Breck boy either if they were Catholic. Kim is right, this is going to boil down to the lesser of 2 evils.

As I wrote in another comment, Republicans need to keep their eyes on the prize (the White House). What we end up with after the November election could be far, far worse if we don't.

oops, double post. Sorry.

I'm going to look into this (I have reliable source who is a monsignor in the Vatican), but I don't think the Bishop can refuse a practicing Catholic Communion.

"I'm going to look into this (I have reliable source who is a monsignor in the Vatican), but I don't think the Bishop can refuse a practicing Catholic Communion.
Posted by Peter F."

As long as the Holy See gets its "cut", the bishops can do as they please. "Mother Church" is a syndicate.

They want things Quiet.

This, and the threat by the evanjellos to create a third party to run against Giuliani, is in my opinion just pressure to get Giuliani to move his position on abortion and toe the line for the religious right.

Romney would do it - Romney would sell his soul to the devil if it would get him the presidency, so of course he'll sell out the Pope if needed - Romney has all the backbone of a jellyfish.

Giuliani may not bite. He wants to be a middle-ist and he figures that the religious right will indeed pinch their noses and vote for him, despite his abortion position, rather that letting Shrill Hill have it.

I'm banned at WizBlue!
I'm banned at WizBlue!
Lee Ward is selling sou.
Who gives a flyin' foo?
====================

" I don't think the Bishop can refuse a practicing Catholic Communion."

Even a priest can excommunicate someone. It doesn't take the pope or a cardinal, or even a hearing for that matter.

The RC Church should deny communion to every Catholic in Dem Congressional Leadership. Over the last 60 years, their domestic and international policies have done more to destroy our moral, intellectual, military, social and cultural-historical heritage and mores than the 3 wives of Rudy and any thoughts he might have ( he has never legislated any liberal policies when in authority) by 6-fold. If anyone has besmirched the Church or the Lord , it is the Democrat Party's policies over two generations.

"If anyone has besmirched the Church or the Lord , it is the Democrat Party's policies over two generations.
Posted by Glenn Koons"

The Catholic Church recrucifies our Lord at every Mass, PHYSICALLY and SPIRITUALLY, at least according to the popish doctrine of transubstantiation.

Which of course, is blasphemy.

"I'm banned at WizBlue!
I'm banned at WizBlue!
Lee Ward is selling sou.
Who gives a flyin' foo?
====================
Posted by kim"

Banning is a sign of weakness so take at as a compliment.
Here's a link to Episodes 1 of The World at War! Best WW2 doc ever!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LLKv38kOrI&mode=related&search=

I'm not Catholic, but my recollection is that the doctrine holds that persons professing a position contrary to the Church's teaching on abortion are to be denied communion, and that the ruling on the issue was specifically inclusive of elected officials.

I'm not Catholic, but my recollection is that the doctrine holds that persons professing a position contrary to the Church's teaching on abortion are to be denied communion, and that the ruling on the issue was specifically inclusive of elected officials.

No, sorry Jim and Paul B., you are both wrong. This is an independent/rogue act by a bishop going against the teachings of the Church; he is a Man who cannot arbitrarily decide who gets Communion and who does not. He is acting as God in this instance, and it is NOT his place to judge such decisions, no matter how much he may disagree with them. The AB is merely a messenger of God; a lesson he has apparently forgotten.

I'm sorry, I cannot publicly reveal my source, but this information comes from scholar in the Church. If you would like to contact me for more information and background you know how to do so.

Peter F,

Your "scholar in the Church" is full of shit. Probably a Demcrat which make him or her a heretic anyway. Probably teaches at Notre Dame also.

It is established doctrine in the Church that abortion is a mortal sin, that politicians who support abortion are guilty of a mortal sin, and anyone who votes for a pro-abortion candidate is guilty of a mortal sin.

Anyone who administers communion, be they a pope, cardinal, bishop, priest, nun, or lay minister, is duty bound to withhold communion from someone they know to be guilty of a mortal sin for which they have not attoned. It's that simple.

A side note: nuns and lay ministers cannot consecrate the eucharist (apparently that bit of "hocus pocus" requires extensive formal religious training and a penis) and they are highly unlikely to excummunicate anyone as they don't hear confessions.

bryanD,

They are not "recrucifying" Christ. They believe the crucifixion was a "timeless" act. It occurred outside the confines of normal time. Every time the Church celebrates the eucharist they are re-experiencing and re-witness the same, original crucifixion. Actually every time someone commits a mortal sin they are participating in that same, original crucifiction-- when you sin, when you vote for a pro abortion politician you are nailing Christ to the cross.

On another topic: "Banning is a sign of weakness"

I agree with this, except in the most grevious circumstances. I think the bannings on this site have gone too far.

And in just in case, I want post a disclaimer. I am explaining the doctrine of the Catholic Church, not my personal beliefs.

I was a Catholic for over 30 years. Now I'm simply a theist. I see what I believe to be the truth in all religions. I also see the bullshit technicalities in all religions.

Oops! I'm "kimming" again.... ;)

The error with spirituality is organizing it. But just try not to.
============================================

Heh, heh. It's like surfing, you know. Catch that wave and go.
==================================

Those waves? That's the mind of God jiggling your p-Branes.
=====================================

Your "scholar in the Church" is full of shit. Probably a Demcrat which make him or her a heretic anyway. Probably teaches at Notre Dame also.

First, watch your mouth; this is my uncle you're slandering. And he's a Monsignor in the Vatican.

Anyway...

From Catholic News Service, July 2004:

After discussing the issue in Colorado, U.S. bishops overwhelmingly passed a statement that sharply criticized Catholic politicians who support legal abortion. The bishops also said denying Communion to those politicians is a complex question involving "prudential judgment" in each case.

In other words, it's not as clearcut as you would like to think it is. However...

...the politician's pastor should..."meet with him, instructing him about the church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist."

Seeing as how AB Burke is not Guiliani's direct pastor and likely hasn't spoken to him, except through the Press--and this is a personal religious matter, not a public one--Burke cannot reasonably pass "prudential judgment" on Guiliani. Nor can Burke call on other bishops to deny him Communion, if he has done so.

My personal opinion of Rudy's stance is this: As a public official Guiliani is sworn to uphold the law of the land. Currently, as much as many of us do not approve of abortion, including myself, it is a legal right to have access to one. Any attempt by any politician--Dem, Rep, Lib, whomever--to deny someone this legal right is against the law. If someone wishes to see this stance as "pro-abortion" they do so wrongly, IMO.

I'm aware that Rudy has approved of publicly funded abortions. Funding them is also the law. What I don't know is whether or not Rudy personally believes in abortions or does not. I also know that in the past, Rudy's been more than a little inconsistent on whether getting abortion is murder or not. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume he doesn't approve of abortions personally but has upheld public policy and the law, does that make him "pro-abortion"? I don't believe so.

My final thought is this: I really wish conservative Christians who consistently, election after election, make abortion the issue would stop making it the sole issue upon which they base their vote. They say they won't support any candidate that supports abortion and euthanasia, yet the overwhelming majority of these folks are in favor of the death penalty. This is morally, philosophically and religiously hypocritical--and that's putting it nicely. To be fair, left wingers are in the exact opposite camp. But there's no question one thing: Both sides go against the teachings of Christ Jesus and God. None of us are the arbiters of Life and Death; only God is. So where conservative Christians get off is beyond me.

I, too, am a hypocrite in that I believe that war is often necessary--particularly the War on Islamofacism; it is a "just" war. I know the Church doesn't agree that it is a "just" war, but they have in the past supported (or at least not condemned) military actions in East Timor and Bosnia and seen those as "just" interventions. I think, and have told my uncle as such, the Church is wrong on this issue. But I am anti-abortion, anti-death penalty and against euthanasia.

Your uncle can have his opinions and the US bishops can have their opinions, but they do not correspond with the doctrine of the Church. American "scholars in the church" are famous for this. That's why the American Catholic church is a joke and is fading away.

The clergy who give communion to pro-abortion potilicans like Rudy, Kerry, Kennedy, and Pelosi are the rogues and heretics, not those who would publicly deny them. And yes, in spite of Rudy's weasle words he is pro-abortion. His defense of his postion is no less phoney than "safe, legal, and rare".

As for "single issue" conservatives, this particular issue is the single greatest human rights issue of our time (around 3,000 killed each and every day), it is a horrible karmic stain on America and I sincerely hope that we do not have to pay for it as severely as we did the last time so great an abuse of human rights was legal in this country. So I can appreciate and respect the beliefs and actions of those single issue conservatives and count myself amongst them for the most part (even though I will pragmatically vote for Rudy in the general election if I must).

June 15, 2004, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
Cardinal McCarrick Bishops' Spring Meeting Denver:

Cardinal Ratzinger (before he became Pope and John Paul II "right hand man" on religious scholarly matters) outlines HOW a bishop might deal with these matters, including a series of precautionary measures involving a process of meeting, instruction and warning. This process involves meeting with the person and providing instruction on Catholic moral teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger suggests informing such persons that if they reject Catholic moral teaching in their public actions, they should not present themselves for Holy Communion until their situation has ended. Using the precedent of our teaching and practice in the case of a person in an invalid marriage, the Cardinal recognizes that there are circumstances in which Holy Communion may be denied. He also indicates that in these cases a warning must be provided before the Eucharist can be denied. Parenthetical and bolded emphasis mine.

This is NOT opinion. This IS the doctrine communicated down to bishops by the Church.

No meeting, to my knowledge or that has been made public, has EVER taken place between AB Burke and Rudy. Therefore, it is AB Burke acting as rogue and in breach of doing his duties properly as a priest. He can deny Rudy Eucharist, but not without meeting him first.

And I still stand by my statement that if a catholic clergy knows that a person is guilty of a mortal sin, is aware of it, and refuses to attone for it, they are obligated to deny that person communion.

Nothing you have posted contradicts that statement.

Ask any priest who's not a leftist.

Read the post above again more carefully.

""If any politician approached me and he'd been admonished not to present himself, I'd not give it," Burke told The Associated Press Wednesday. "To me, you have to be certain a person realizes he is persisting in a serious public sin."

All catholics have been admonished not to present themselves is they support abortion. They'd have to be pretty cluess not to know that and not to realize they are persisting in a serious public sin.

Burke is in no way a rogue. The leftist American Catholic leaders just try to weasel around this fact.

P. Bunyan:

I read it just fine, my friend.

You're cherry-picking and conveniently skipping the part prior to that that reads "This process involves meeting with the person and providing instruction on Catholic moral teaching."

AB Burke has NOT had that meeting with Rudy so, sorry, he can't deny him Eucharist. And admonishing someone through the media counts for squawdoosh when it comes to "involving a process of meeting, instruction and warning."

O.k. Peter, let me put it this way. Ask your uncle if he was administering communion and a person presented himself for communion and your uncle knew as 100% fact that

(1) the person was guilty of a mortal sin, and

(2) the person knew that they were guilty of the mortal sin and they refused not only to attone for that sin, but also refused to cease committing that mortal sin,

Would your uncle (a) refuse him communion or (b) give him communion anyway then later on try to have a personal meeting where he could admonish the person and tell him not to present himself for communion in the future?

If he answers (b) he is a heretic.

See it's a little different with an average person, but Rudy is a well know public figure who has admitted publicly on numerous occasions that he is guilty of the mortal sin and that he will not cease to be guilty of it (and thus will not attone for it). And Pope John Paul has issued a blanket admonishment that all Catholics who support abortion are guilty of a mortal sin so you can't weasle out on that technicality.

Excellent discussion. I'm glad people can still think passionately about sin.
=================================

The funny thing is I don't even agree with the church on this, but I do know and understand their position. I have to admit I was raised old school catholic and the church, especially in America, has drifted to the left and further left in American urban/suburban diocese.

I personally don't think the church should ever deny the Eucharist to anyone. I believe that if bread and wine can transubstantiate into God they can just as easily transubstantiate back. The church says otherwise of course. I believe there are members of the clergy who are likely unfit to handle God in bread and wine form and most likely the transubstantiation happens in the split second the host changes hands (or hits the tongue if you're traditional) and that same thing can happen in the other direction if the recipient is not worthy, but that's just what I believe not the church.

I said earlier that I was a catholic for the first 30 some years of my life but I was also a heretic for well over half those years. I'd say starting in about jr. high or so I was unfit to present myself for communion according to the church's rules. Lucky for me I live by God's rules (well I try my best), but was never one to sweat the church's technicalities. I believe I know what is a sin and what is not. I belive almost anything can be sin or not depending on the circumstances--you can't cover it with a blanket set of rules. Take sex for instance; I believe selfless sex is almost never a sin while selfish sex is almost always a sin and whether or not you've jumped through the hoops for the church to sanction it is irrelevant. But that's just what I believe not the church.

Still I, the heretic, presented myself for communion every week because when I do sin I believe I know it and I atone for it and I truly believed there's no need to for a priest to be involved in that process. I believe that whether or not I'm at peace with God us up to God to decide not the church. I was still a heretic because I was committing what the church defined to be mortal sins and I felt no need to atone for it, nor had I the intention to stop. I wasn't, however, openly declaring those facts multiple times on national television so there was no way for the priest to know. If I did openly declare those facts multiple times on national television the priest would have had to excommunicate me no question about it.

The document Peter quoted above talks about "precedent of our teaching and practice in the case of a person in an invalid marriage" because that is one of the more common reasons for the church to excommunicate someone in this day and age as it's easy to discover and prove. When the priest does find out about it, they do try and speak with the person involved in private and tell them they must set things right before they may receive communion so the person is not shamed by being denied in front of anyone. But they don't keep giving that person communion anyway.

You accuse me of cherry picking, Peter, but you've cherry picked a single paragraph out of what was most likely a much longer document. While I don't currently have the ambition to track down and read the whole thing, I'd bet that nowhere in it does it explicitly state that the priest should just go ahead and give the person communion anyway.

Another thing is if Rudy's regular parish priest is not a heretic, he should have had that private meeting with Rudy a long time ago and until he stops being pro-abortion he should be excommunicated not only in his home parish, but in every catholic church everywhere.

Which brings me back to my original point. Calling Archbishop Burke a rogue is equivalent to, if a group of men were about to gang rape a woman and one decide to run and call the police, calling that man a rogue. Burke is the one doing the right thing here.

You're both right, and I'm perplexed.
====================================