No communion for Obama supporters - Is that right?

Gambler

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20081113/obama-catholics/

Here's a small quote:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

When I say "Is that right?" I mean does that hold up with the teachings of the church or is it someone using their position as a "bully pulpit" of sorts?

kelly1

If they voted knowing that Obama is pro-abortion, then then shouldn't receive Holy Communion unless they've repented and gone to confession.

Fanny Cradock

Religion and politics don't mix.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

If they voted knowing that Obama is pro-abortion, then then shouldn't receive Holy Communion unless they've repented and gone to confession.

And if they voted for McCain, knowing him to be pro-war? It's a two party system, so it seems like you're going to confession either way.

Gambler

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And if they voted for McCain, knowing him to be pro-war? It's a two party system, so it seems like you're going to confession either way.

Heh who'd have thunk it, looks like voting itself is now worthy of a trip to confession :P

kelly1

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Religion and politics don't mix.

It's not a political issue, it's a moral one. It's a sin to support abortion.

Fanny Cradock

But it's not up to him whether such things are legal or otherwise. I honestly believe that people being chastised by someone they have never heard from drives people away.

kelly1

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But it's not up to him whether such things are legal or otherwise.

A person's vote helps to put someone in power who can make abortion legal. Don't you think that's wrong?

Would you vote for a pro-abortion politician?

Fanny Cradock

kelly1 wrote: »

A person's vote helps to put someone in power who can make abortion legal. Don't you think that's wrong?

Would you vote for a pro-abortion politician?

I don't agree with abortion, but I still would have voted for Obama. Who I decide to vote for isn't necessarily a black or white (:pac:) issue.

Obama being elected wont have a huge effect on the matter of abortion in the US. In many respects, the real power lies with Congress and the Senate.

Bottle_of_Smoke

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And if they voted for McCain, knowing him to be pro-war? It's a two party system, so it seems like you're going to confession either way.

That's actually very interesting, I can't imagine there was ever a politician who vowed to do something immoral by the bible but accepted by law.

Though I think Noel is also theologically correct. So simply by voting for someone you would almost certainly be required to go to confession.

brianthebard

kelly1 wrote: »

A person's vote helps to put someone in power who can make abortion legal. Don't you think that's wrong?

Would you vote for a pro-abortion politician?

You know they already have abortion over there so your point is moot right?

Run_to_da_hills

According to Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church if you voted for Obama you voted the Antichrist :eek:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20081024_antichrist-obama.pdf

anonymous_joe

Always depresses me that a religion based on the tolerance and love of one man manages to be corrupted by so many people into hatred and bitterness.

Obama's not the Anti-Christ, and he's not pro-abortion, he's pro-choice. Anyone who dares to manipulate that is a liar. I recall that that's a sin.

Galvasean

kelly1 wrote: »

Would you vote for a pro-abortion politician?

Funny how they attack Obama for being pr-abortion when the only other viable alternative was John McCain, a man who is pro-divorce (and had one).
You just can't win.

Run_to_da_hills

Most Politicians these days are professional liars and make careers out of deceiving people. No matter who gets into power is exactly not going to follow the teachings of scripture. :rolleyes:

AtomicHorror

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church if you voted for Obama you voted the Antichrist :eek:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20081024_antichrist-obama.pdf

Ah so that's where the Obama=antichrist stuff came from. Strange really, how Phelps turned out. He started his career as a civil rights lawyer defending blacks.

Phelps also has a website called GodHatesIreland.com

Run_to_da_hills

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Ah so that's where the Obama=antichrist stuff came from. Strange really, how Phelps turned out. He started his career as a civil rights lawyer defending blacks.

Phelps also has a website called GodHatesIreland.com

Phelps is not the only one who hits out at Obama.

He is also referred to as a "Communist" by David Stewart of Jesus is Saviour.com back in february. I could posssibly see the like of these and similar web sites being classified as hate sites and shut down by law in the not so distant future possibly by Obama himself.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/barack_obama.htm

AtomicHorror

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Phelps is not the only one who hits out at Obama.

He is also referred to as a "Communist" by David Stewart of Jesus is Saviour.com, I could posssibly see these and similar web sites being classified as hate sites and shut down by law in the not so distant future possibly by the man himself.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/barack_obama.htm

Well they've been hate sites for a long time. They're still around, which suggests to me that they're hosted somewhere without the firm legislation required to close them.

Run_to_da_hills

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well they've been hate sites for a long time. They're still around, which suggests to me that they're hosted somewhere without the firm legislation required to close them.

There is a thin line between "hate" sites and the right to freedom of speech. Although I could see no harm in legislation in banning Fred Phelps but where do you draw the line? We have the right to freedom of speech.

Could other websites be banned for speaking out against governments leading to a communist type scenario where the all media, press and internet is censored.

Australia is already considering Chinese style Internet censorship. Other Christian sites could be censored and subsequently shut down for speaking out on moral issues such as homosexuality, abortion, divorce, etc.

Nerin

kelly1 wrote: »

A person's vote helps to put someone in power who can make abortion legal. Don't you think that's wrong?

Would you vote for a pro-abortion politician?

Would you vote for a pro war politician? Either way,it would seem your damned if you do,your damned if you don't. No pun intended. Question-did they refuse communion to bush supporters back when he was being voted for? Smacks of using religion as an excuse for a personal vendetta to be honest.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

A person's vote helps to put someone in power who can make abortion legal. Don't you think that's wrong?

Would you vote for a pro-abortion politician?

Not 100% sure what you mean, but firstly the President in US politics doesn't make laws (the president is part of the executive branch, where as laws come from the legislative branch, Congress). Obama is responsible for the running of the government within the current laws. He has some power to influence what does or does not become law by vetoing laws put before him, but he doesn't decide law.

But of course the point is rather irrelevant anyway because in America abortion is based currently on Constitutional interpretation. It would be unconstitutional to make laws outlawing abortion because the current interpretation of the privacy amendments of the US Constitution is that no law can be enacted to stop a woman doing what she likes to her own body. What she is doing to her own body is largely irrelevant to that.

Since you cannot in act a law restricting this right to privacy it would be very difficult to outlaw abortion legally, without a re-interpretation of the Constitution.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Wicknight wrote: »

Not 100% sure what you mean, but firstly the President in US politics doesn't make laws (the president is part of the executive branch, where as laws come from the legislative branch, Congress). Obama is responsible for the running of the government within the current laws. He has some power to influence what does or does not become law by vetoing laws put before him, but he doesn't decide law.

But of course the point is rather irrelevant anyway because in America abortion is based currently on Constitutional interpretation. It would be unconstitutional to make laws outlawing abortion because the current interpretation of the privacy amendments of the US Constitution is that no law can be enacted to stop a woman doing what she likes to her own body. What she is doing to her own body is largely irrelevant to that.

Since you cannot in act a law restricting this right to privacy it would be very difficult to outlaw abortion legally, without a re-interpretation of the Constitution.

I think what kelly1 means is that, legailty aside, no Catholic should vote for Obama (or McCain for that matter) because his stance on certain issues is morally abhorrent in the doctrine of the church. He's not questioning the laws themselves.

tunamill

The priest's position has been officially repudiated by the Diocese of Charleston:

http://www.catholic-doc.org/ (video and pdf of statement available).



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Priest's remarks on Obama voters said not to reflect church teaching

By Dennis Sadowski
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, S.C., said a pastor who told his parishioners they should refrain from receiving holy Communion if they voted for President-elect Barack Obama did not "adequately reflect the Catholic Church's teaching" on abortion and conscience.

"Any statements or comments to the contrary are repudiated," Msgr. Martin T. Laughlin said in a Nov. 14 statement.

Father Jay Scott Newman of St. Mary's Church in Greenville, S.C., said in a letter to his parishioners that Catholics who voted for Obama, who supports legalized abortion, would have to be reconciled with God through the sacrament of penance before faithfully receiving Communion again. The letter was published on the front page of the parish bulletin Nov. 8-9.

Msgr. Laughlin said that Father Newman's comments "diverted the church's clear teaching on abortion" by pulling it into the "partisan political arena."

Quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Msgr. Laughlin said that Christ gives everyone "the 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," he said.

The diocesan administrator also urged Catholics throughout South Carolina to unite to support Obama and other elected officials "with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child." He invited people to pray for the new president and his administration as they take office Jan. 20.

In his letter, Father Newman said members of his parish who voted for Obama had placed themselves "outside of the full communion of Christ's church and under the judgment of divine law."

"Persons in this condition should not receive holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the sacrament of penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation," he wrote.

The priest called Obama "the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president."

Father Newman's letter also reminded parishioners to pray for the president-elect and "to cooperate with him whenever conscience does not bind us otherwise."

"Let us hope and pray that the responsibilities of the presidency and the grace of God will awaken in the conscience of this extraordinarily gifted man an awareness that the unholy slaughter of children in this nation is the greatest threat to the peace and security of the United States and constitutes a clear and present danger to the common good," Father Newman wrote.

Calls made to Father Newman Nov. 14 were not returned.


[/FONT]http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805820.htm

Nevyn

Well it could be viewed that by voting for him that they have aided a woman in procuring an abortion which is an offense which causes automatic excommunication from the catholic church and if that is the case the need to appeal and go to confession.

The same could be said of everyone who voted for the right to travel and the right to information in the last abortion referendum.

neuro-praxis

For the record, it's not that Obama is in favour of abortion - as I understand it he has some objections to the nature of some laws being formed to ban it in certain states.

There is a difference.

I am pro-life, Irish and Christian but if I'd had a vote, I'd have given it to Obama. He's already said he's going to shut down Guantanamo! No man can offer you everything you want and I think, if he follows through on his promises, America is going to look a whole lot better in the next 4 years.

As for denying anyone communion, the pope has already said I am not welcome to share in the Lord's supper at mass because I am a member not of the church, but of an "ecclesial community".

You guys who voted Obama can just come have communion with us!

Thomas_S_Hunterson

neuro-praxis wrote: »

For the record, it's not that Obama is in favour of abortion

But he is pro-choice which means he is in favour of abortion being a freely available option, with the exeption of in cases of late term pregnancies.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=hym1BW7Ep2A (first 2 seconds)

Under Catholic doctrine, there is no room for debate, they are anti-abortion and anti-choice.

kelly1

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Obama's not the Anti-Christ, and he's not pro-abortion, he's pro-choice. Anyone who dares to manipulate that is a liar. I recall that that's a sin.

Pro-abortion/pro-choice, what's the difference?? Nobody conceives a child just for the sake of aborting the pregnancy.

Pro-choice = condoning murder.

Dudess

Well I think there is such a thing as pro-choice - as in, if someone wouldn't have an abortion themselves but would support the right of others to have the choice to do so. However, if a person would have an abortion themselves, then they are pro-abortion. Why sugar-coat it?

For that priest to be consistent though, he should insist the following people should not receive communion: all those who have sex before marriage, use contraception, agree with/have gone through divorce.

Nerin

Dudess wrote: »

Well I think there is such a thing as pro-choice - as in, if someone wouldn't have an abortion themselves but would support the right of others to have the choice to do so. However, if a person would have an abortion themselves, then they are pro-abortion. Why sugar-coat it?

For that priest to be consistent though, he should insist the following people should not receive communion: all those who have sex before marriage, use contraception, agree with/have gone through divorce.

Alot of priests still do that.

axer

Does a person have to force his/her religion onto others to be a christian or to not be thrown out?

tricky D

It is the Supreme Court of the US and state legislatures which makes such decisions, not the President. Roe vs Wade had just about nothing to do with the policies of the President of the day - Nixon kept his mouth shut and let the courts decide.

jhegarty

tricky D wrote: »

It is the Supreme Court of the US and state legislatures which makes such decisions, not the President. Roe vs Wade had just about nothing to do with the policies of the President of the day - Nixon kept his mouth shut and let the courts decide.

And the Supreme Court is appointed by ?

A:

Yep, it's the President

Fanny Cradock

kelly1 wrote: »

Pro-choice = condoning murder.

I realise that abortion is a very emotive issue, but lets not alienate people.

philologos

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Obama's not the Anti-Christ, and he's not pro-abortion, he's pro-choice. Anyone who dares to manipulate that is a liar. I recall that that's a sin.

It's encouraging oppression. Choice for who? the unborn? There are two sets of rights to be considered in abortion cases. As such I don't think it is reasonable to call it "pro-choice" as it only allows a choice for the mother. A compromise in rights needs to be found between the mother and the child, otherwise it is a system where one removes the rights of another. It would also be a violation of Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

tunamill

Jakkass wrote: »

There are two sets of rights to be considered in abortion cases.

Correction: there are three sets of rights, aren`t there? how did the role of men get taken out of this altogether? I know that the child grows in the mother's womb, but that is just as much his child as it is the mothers.

It's funny because I notice that these definitions bend according to personal preference. For instance, if a couple is trying to have a baby, the announcement is often, "We're pregnant!" Not the case if the baby is not wanted, and "a burden" that only the mother should deal with.

I think it's a double standard that absolves the man of any responsibility in the matter.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

tunamill wrote: »

I think it's a double standard that absolves the man of any rights in the matter.

Corrected.

Women are quite happy to be in a preferential position in court battles when it suits them. (as anyone else would be)

But this thread is still about the sins of Obama supporters!

Húrin

kelly1 wrote: »

If they voted knowing that Obama is pro-abortion, then then shouldn't receive Holy Communion unless they've repented and gone to confession.

There were all sorts of solidly Christian reasons against voting for either McCain or Obama. Elevating abortion above the rest of these reasons makes no sense. McCain and the other Republicans are pro-abortion*, pro-war and anti-poor. Hardly a sound Catholic agenda.

This is bullying from the pulpit. One of the innumerable beauties of Christian fellowship is that we have it without regard to which way we vote. This news violates that good. And as far as I know it came from both sides during the recent presidential campaign.

I also think that it is culturally impossible for any American politician to formulate a truly Christian political programme. This is because there is a devil at the heart of American political culture - the worship of America itself. The "Founding Fathers" are the gods of this faith and their declaration of independence and constitution are its scriptures.

Two typical examples:

John McCain's concession speech wrote:

Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.

Obama's acceptance speech wrote:

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

*Abortion has been legal in America for 35 years, and despite the federal government being mostly dominated by Republicans in that time, little to nothing has been done against it. Thus, I believe that Republicans do not care about abortion, merely using it to get votes htat will enable them to pursue their agenda of militarisation and enriching the upper business class.

tricky D

jhegarty wrote: »

And the Supreme Court is appointed by ?

A:

Yep, it's the President

You need to pluralise that and also not miss the point.

Gambler

jhegarty wrote: »

And the Supreme Court is appointed by ?

A:

Yep, it's the President

Actually, they only nominate their choices, they are then appointed "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate."

Yes Obama will pick someone he wants but he doesn't have the final say, the senate does, so surely anyone who voted for any senator that may or may not support Obamas nomination will also have to go to confession? We're back to voting = sinning I think!

See here for details of nomination\confirmation process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Nomination

MrPudding

Gambler wrote: »

Yes Obama will pick someone he wants but he doesn't have the final say, the senate does,

Is there actually a space open? It would not be beyond the realms of possibility that a presedent did not get the chance to make a nomination.

MrP

Gambler

The feeling is that there will be three seats opening over the next 8 years and possibly two of them will be during his first term

Demonique

kelly1 wrote: »

A person's vote helps to put someone in power who can make abortion legal. Don't you think that's wrong?

Would you vote for a pro-abortion politician?

I'd have voted for Obama over McCain in a heartbeat. There's no way I would want the risk of a woman who made (or wants to make) rape victims pay for their own rape kits getting into power is McCain keels over.

Anyway, Obama IS NOT pro-abortion, nobody wants women to have abortions, but as far as he's concerned its up to the individual to make the choice not government. When Bush was in power he cut funding to organisations that provided cheap birth control to women from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Obama stated he is for preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, which is a good thing, unless you're one of those "babies are a gift from God, by using BC you're rejecting his gift" people

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Pro-abortion/pro-choice, what's the difference??

Well "pro-abortion" kinda sounds like they want everyone to have abortions, in the way that "pro-life" groups want everyone not to have abortions.

The "pro-choice" campaigners say that it is not up to them to say you should or should not have an abortion, that is up to the woman or couple to decide, but that you should have the choice to decide if you should or not.

kelly1 wrote: »

Nobody conceives a child just for the sake of aborting the pregnancy.

Which is why "pro-abortion" sounds a bit silly.

kelly1 wrote: »

Pro-choice = condoning murder.

Meh, it all depends on what you consider murder. For example I think all Christians who believe in the Old Testament as righteous are basically condoning multiple genocides (mass murder) with the stories of the Hebrew military campaigns.

You probably don't think it is murder because you believe it was carried out under orders from God. It certainly was killing though on a massive scale.

Likewise I don't believe early term abortions are murder because I don't believe a person exists yet. It does certainly kill a life form though.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Likewise I don't believe early term abortions are murder because I don't believe a person exists yet. It does certainly kill a life form though.

What does age/development have to do with personhood? When does a foetus become a person in your opinion?

Did you come across this story?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OKmiiV2EZ3Q

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

What does age/development have to do with personhood? When does a foetus become a person in your opinion?

When it has developed a brain and nervous system capable of higher brain function.

kelly1 wrote: »

Did you come across this story?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OKmiiV2EZ3Q

[/quote]

The story sounds slightly implausible (not sure an abortion doctor would be surprised to find the feotus with a heart beat since the vast majority of foetuses have heart beats that I imagine continue beating after removal and until the foetus dies?), but then the personal religious feelings of this doctor are rather immaterial to my views on this matter.

He (like so many pro-life people in my experience) doesn't actually give an ethical reason why abortion is wrong beyond some religious/theological argument that God/angels/messangers say it is.

If he actually comes up with an argument why abortion is wrong beyond a man in a black robe told him so in a dream he had once, I might be more interested :pac:

Galvasean

Let's not have another abortion thread please...

On topic: Why are they so adamant about one issue but not really caring about others (ie: McCain's vices)?

tunamill

[/quote] He (like so many pro-life people in my experience) doesn't actually give an ethical reason why abortion is wrong beyond some religious/theological argument that God/angels/messangers say it is.

If he actually comes up with an argument why abortion is wrong beyond a man in a black robe told him so in a dream he had once, I might be more interested :pac:[/quote]

I hate to drag on the abortion issue, but I've just been on a thread in the Personal Issues section about someone who had a "failed abortion" and there are loads of people talking about how traumatic it is, and how they have had abortions and how difficult it is, etc, etc. If it is such a simple procedure for you, then why is it so difficult? The posters are all seems to be people that are pro-choice. There is obviously something more to this than just a physical definition of feotus/baby.

Zombrex

tunamill wrote: »

I hate to drag on the abortion issue, but I've just been on a thread in the Personal Issues section about someone who had a "failed abortion" and there are loads of people talking about how traumatic it is, and how they have had abortions and how difficult it is, etc, etc. If it is such a simple procedure for you, then why is it so difficult?

Sorry, I'm not really following what you are asking?

Are you asking why people on PI find abortion traumatic when I appear to have little issue with it (given a certain time frame)

Can you see the problem there if that is what you are asking? How am I supposed to answer why they find it traumatic? You'll have to ask them.

tunamill wrote: »

The posters are all seems to be people that are pro-choice. There is obviously something more to this than just a physical definition of feotus/baby.

Not really.