What? Mr. Bishop-of-Rome-Guy presumes to lecture us on morality? Who died and made him Pope? We’re Congresspeople, goddammit!
A group of 18 Catholic House Democrats publicly disputed Pope Benedict XVI’s recent condemnation of politicians who support abortion rights, saying that “such notions offend the very nature of the American experiment.”
On his flight to Brazil last Wednesday (May 9), Benedict said Catholic politicians in Mexico City who recently voted to legalize abortion could consider themselves excommunicated from the church. The Vatican later said the pope was merely restating church policy, which calls for Catholics who participate in abortions to exclude themselves from taking Holy Communion.
On Monday (May 14), Catholic House Democrats said Benedict’s comments “do a great disservice to the centuries of good work the church has done.”
“The fact is that religious sanction in the political arena directly conflicts with our fundamental beliefs about the role and responsibility of democratic representatives in a pluralistic America  it also clashes with freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution,” a statement from the 18 lawmakers said.
Because abortion’s enshrined in the Constitution! I mean the Bill of Rights! I mean, the Declaration of Independence!
Why does he have to be such a hard-ass about it?
(h/t OpinionJournal’s Best of the Web)
(Popemeter filched without prior permission of Wuzzadem)
UPDATE: Reich-Wing Hypocrisy: More Mexican abortion means less illegal immigration to the US!
Wait for it, in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . .
I would love to know how the Pope’s speaking about Church doctrine in regards to Mexican lawmakers infringes on their Constitutional rights. Shouldn’t these clowns be required to have a modicum of a functional understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights before being seated in Congress ?
Catholics … doctrine … I mean, its outrageous that the Pope actually expects those who call themselves Catholic to actually follow Catholic teachings. Who does he think he is, the head of the Catholic church?
Next they’ll be outraged at those that call for boycotts of news networks that don’t toe the Democrat party line …
He’s still pope? I thought Andrew Sullivan had him replaced.
Andrew’s just been enthusing about “pounding the bishops” over at the Vatican. Not sure what that entails, frankly…
Perhaps the Pope could give gay men the right to an abortion during the first trimester.
You can’t be both. But the genius of the American experiment is…
Nobody can force you to be either.
Next non-event?
Has the Pope apologized yet?
I think that as Catholics they should be required to have a little understanding of what Catholicism requires of a person.
If they have a problem with it, call themselves Protestants and leave.
My understanding of communion is that if you are engaged in current and willful sin… which I guess includes aiding and abetting, you are supposed to stand down from communion.
I think this is to prevent you from walking up to God (in the figurative sense) and acting out a lie.
As far as I’m concerned these Congresspersons should take personal responsibility for their choices and not lecture the Pope on what Catholics can and cannot do. If they want to take their chances fine, suck it up and do it. But don’t whine about the rules… they knew those when they joined the Church.
I’ve heard people say “I’m Christian… but I don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God”
The best response is “Jesus Christ! You’ve got to be kidding me” and see if they get it.
Idiots
tw: boy69….. ummmmmm not like the Church is all that perfect either
Did they just accuse the Pope of being “unamerican”.
Did they question his patriotism?
And could he lay off all the Jesus stuff for a while? I mean, for Christ’s sake, a little bit of that goes a looooooooong way.
I don’t think so. It must be that he is so ashamed and humiliated that he is afraid to show his face in public.
I think that Benedict should issue a fatwa against these Congresscritters, and have a couple of kidnappees from Planned Parenthood beheaded. That would put the fear of Allah…I mean, God…into these liberal whiners.
TW: himself69…I am so not going there.
I’m sorry, but that was seriously one of the funniest things I have read in a long time! Thanks SteveG! And that is coming from a former Catholic (13 years of Catholic school) that doesn’t “hate” the church. As a matter of fact I still choose to worship in it as I feel very comfortable with the mass. I just have some disagreements with the whole infallibity issue, but do think that the Pope is a tremendous man.
You mean like how he apologized when those Muslims got so incensed? You think that by apologizing for something that didn’t warrant an apology that he has sort of invited this sort of thing? That’s messed up.
Catholic Dems and any other Catholic politicians who vote to permit abortion are abso-freakin-lutely entitled to do so. What they are then NOT entitled to do is to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist at Mass. Why not?
Because the Pope called it! It’s that simple, people. You wanna hang with us, you have to follow our rules.
Maybe they’re equally offended at the Church’s insistence that they believe in the immaculate conception or the resurrection. Why be Catholic if you don’t believe in it? I could never figure that out.
I used the same logic being wielded here on my mother-in-law and she responded to the effect that, “maybe I want to be Catholic, but I want the church to change.” I told her she should become a theologian if she really wanted change, instead of some kind of armchair Luther.
That’s just it, though. Is it necessary that the church and it’s doctrine be forever unchanged? The history of the Roman church certainly doesn’t suggest as much.
It’s the cool new religion, Zogbetyrian: God speaks through the people-
Has this pope ever met any catholics? Jeez.
I’m sure the Democrats will want to spring the lengths of their chains to denounce this intrusion of clerics into public policy:
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and four leaders of Protestant denominations wrote to the U. S. Congress May 10 to urge budget negotiators to preserve important investments in federal domestic and international programs that fight poverty and disease at home and around the globe.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of them bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can’t afford to bloody feed. I’m a Protestant, and fiercely proud of it. I can “do it” any time I want, and, what’s more, because I don’t believe in all that Papist claptrap, I can take precautions, because I am a member of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, I can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue. I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure that, when I came off, one would not be impregnated. That’s what being a Protestant’s all about. That’s why it’s the church for me. That’s why it’s the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual’s right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas. And, Protestantism doesn’t stop at the simple condom. Oh, no. I can wear French Ticklers if I want. French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress. Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry’s and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, ‘Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I’ll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.’ But they – Well, they cannot, ‘cause their church never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien Episcopal supremacy.
I wonder what view Jesus would have taken on excommunication-
I remember from my catechism classes the first thing stated about excommunication was that in any society of people, the society has a right to deny someone membership. (Funny, Robert’s Rules says the same thing.) Once you grant that, then you really can’t tell a society what criteria to use.
Jesus actually gave an outline for it (see, e.g., Matthew 18:15-17).
Basically, if someone is publically sinning you are supposed to take them aside privately and convince them to stop. If you can’t convince them, have “one or two more” go with you to talk to them (basically an intervention). If that doesn’t work, you make it public and hope that suspending their membership is enough of a shock to make them come back. The excommunicant can always come back as long as they stop the sinful behavior and ask forgiveness.
Seems pretty reasonable, and it’s actually more forgiving than the contemporary Judaism, which allowed someone to be kicked out of a synagogue with no hope of return.
One of the first instances of excommunication in christianity is mentioned in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians where he points out that letting a man in an incestuous relationship be a member of your church isn’t a great idea. And frankly, furriskey, that strikes me as an excellent reason to excommunicate someone.
I’m guessing people diagree with the reason for the censure, not the right of the church to defend it’s teachings. If you don’t require your members to walk the talk, then you open yourself up to charges of hypocrisy.
And as people already pointed out, enforcing the rules is what B16 was elected to do and this is only a penalty if you are a believer (i.e., if you’ve already left, why would you care?).
c’mon people now, smile on your brother
I think Congress needs to pass an amnesty bill to provide a path to salvation for pro-choice Catholics.
Bwahahaha, McGehee!
I wonder what view Jesus did take on people who entered the temple and proceeded to use it as a place of business. Which is what politicians do when they refer to themselves as being Catholic on their websites, campaign at parish events and actively troll for the Catholic vote. Add to that those who claim that their support for eco-issues and tax hikes are due to their faith.
That’s a point of view.
My own Catholicism isn’t Roman, so from some perspectives I am already cast into outer darkness.
My interest though is more in reconciling the teachings of Jesus, in so far as we can discern them from the Gospels, with the various doctrines which have accreted to His message over the following centuries.
Hence my question. The answer will have to wait until we die.
Can’t wait for Il Papa to declare Congress anathema, and forbid Catholic congresscritters to speak to themselves…
The Church’s position is completely innappropriate. Legislators are elected by their constituencies to represent their interests, not the Pope’s interests and not the legislator’s personal interest. Yet he will, to his mind and Catholic’s minds, threaten these peoples’ immortal souls with excommunication anyway. It takes “killing the messenger,” or in this case the representative, to a whole new level.
I wouldn’t be surprised that when this Pope meets his reward he gets the same as the Popes before him, namely Christ kicking his ass up and down the streets of gold like a moneychanger. Asshole.
yours/
peter.
Peter–
I’m sorry, but I think that Dante would beg to differ, and my guess is that he’s a bit more profound a theologian than you. The question, as he rightly posited it, has to do with the relations of judgment and mercy. Christ was not non-judgmental, though he was compassionate. Unfortunately, I don’t think you understand that aspect of the god-man.
You sound like a very nice anti-Catholic, otherwise. Enjoy your Whig history. Ta.