OUTRAGE!! Lawmaker: "Priest asked me to quit choir" for being a Democrat

MORE of religion interjecting itself into politics and taking punitive measures against the "Opposition party"....

http://www.eagletribune.com/



ANDOVER -- State Rep. Barbara L'Italien was asked by the pastor of her church, St. Augustine's, to step down as cantor and head of the youth choir because of her pro-choice stance on abortion. L'Italien, a life member of the church, says she refused the requests made by the church's new pastor, the Rev. William M. Cleary.

"I was told that because I am a legislator and a Democrat I was being asked to step down," she said. "This has upset my whole home. I am a pretty unlikely and undeserving target of this." Cleary said this morning his decision to ask her to step down has nothing to do with her party affiliation. Rather, he says, he cannot have someone in a leadership position who is in favor of abortion. "In this particular case we're dealing with a person who is against the church's position," Cleary said. "I can't allow her to be in a public posture -- to be standing up at the pulpit singing or directing singing."

Cleary says he has no problems with L'Italien receiving Communion or working with children "behind the scenes." While he says his decision was not based on her being a Democrat, Cleary did say Democrats, in general, are more inclined to be pro-choice.

L'Italien says Cleary first contacted her by phone on Nov 3. -- a day after she was re-elected to a second legislative term. The following day he came to her home and asked her to resign from the church youth choir, which she has helped lead for the past four years, and from her position leading song in the church, which she called cantoring....MORE

trying to cause a religious war?

"The day hell became deacon"

..but every time I do, there are still a whole chorus of voices that say, "oh no.. this is not serious, this is just a small fringe minority. The majority is on our side, nothing to see here, let's just keep doing the same things we've been doing, etc. etc."

http://www.theocracywatch.org

Read it. Understand it. Fight it.

I really don't care of by sheer numbers of population there are "more" progressive religious people or liberal people in general. When it comes to political organization, political capital, political control, and political power, the religious dominionists in all their forms (aka "Christian Conservative Political groups") we are witnessing a continuing rise to power in this country that is shocking and most be fought. The first step to fighting it is to start accepting its reality.

the "Cause Celeb" that wakes the people up as to what is happening in the churches with their sanctimonious meddling in our State.

- In the words of the Religious Red

I agree, churches should be paying taxes, as should colleges and universities. I saw today that the highest paid official at Syracuse is the basketball coach making $830,000 a year. Ridiculous, they can afford to pay coaches almost a million a year but contribute ZERO in taxes.

Hadn't they better worry about their own sins--like pedophilia?

Some will likely find that offensive, but I'll try to insulate myself by confessing that I'm a fallen Catholic.

sounds to me like he cant wait to get his hands on the children, or at least clear the way for another pedophile, which is their MO.

WTF has happened to our country? :cry:

And Soon.

Start watching your back folks.

....that's pretty damn funny!

It seems that I'm lucky to live in CA, where even the priests seem to be liberal. But is seems to me, that if I were in this position, I would, (oh, I dunno), kick up a big stink. Appeal to the Bishop, make a lot of noise about it. There is nothing that the Catholic Church hates as much as a mess.

Just between you and me ;)

If her parish was 1 mile away in Lawrence it would never had mattered.

all the reps are Dems and there's a real progressive streak in the town.

I left in 79.

Andover voted for Kerry:
Kerry 9,193
Bush 7,903

In 2000, they narrowly favored Gore over Bush:
Gore 7,881
Bush 7,312
(Which does contrast with the rest of the state, which heavily favored Gore 60 to 33% over Bush).

Also note in the article below 88% turnout! (82% in 2000)

Andover Townsman: Record turnout; town backs Kerry

Barbara L'Italien to visit the Presbyterian Church (USA). There, she will be welcomed with open arms and her volunteer work will be very much appreciated.

I myself am an ex-Catholic who has joined the PCUSA.

Massachusetts!

The US Catholic church must be getting lots o' pressure from the Vatican AND political channels to try to stifle those pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage Massachusetts legislators.

If they support this murderous administration!!

None of them will get a dime from me, much less my presence at their "worship" services. And I was raised and educated as a Southern Baptist.

They're all bound for hell. They've totally abandoned the words of Jesus.

Bake

Don't forget the former mayor of boston - and a man immensely popular urged catholics to vote against Kerry because he was pro-choice. Flynn's a democrat, very liberal.

I half think the reason Kerry got less of the vote in MA than Gore did in 2000 is the strong Irish Catholic base that saw his pro-choice stance as against their religion. I'm a catholic and could care less, and I'm not a liberal. It isn't my body, and it isn't my right to tell someone else what they can do, but to be clear there is a sharp,sharp divide on this in Massachusetts and seeing as 60% of the state is democratic....it's mainly the democrats against abortion.

talked to some girls in the Bertuccis and asked them (per chance) how people in Andover voted - they said it tends to be Bush country, but the older people generally voted for Bush, while the youth voted for Kerry. We got into a conversation and I was telling them all about the election fraud stories and the recounts to be. Their eyes widened. One of the girls said her Dad was so mad when Bush "won," he almost punched someone out. I gave them the URLs for DU, buzzflash and votergate movie. They were psyched! God bless them.

Andover is a wealthy town.

I was there to see Starhawk speak - anyone know her?...and she of course, lamented about the election as well. We all did a spiral dance at the end and sang about how we would never give up our liberty and that her power would RISE RISE again.

Starhawk mentioned something interesting that will be nothing new on most people here...she said the Al Quaida threat is like kids throwing rocks compared to the environmental one we are facing...therein is the real "terror."

Where Bush matriculated.

I have all her books. She is one activist who puts her ass where her mouth is.

Vancouver a few years ago just after she released Twelve Wild Swans.

She's a fun lady and an interesting speaker.

Cam

Before the election, the local repug newspaper Lawrence Eagle Tribune (who supported Bush) hinted that Andover would go for Bush. It didn't.

Andover is a very wealthy town (and home of the preznits prep school no less!), but has a great progressive streak running right down the middle of it!

St A's is a big church and there has been controversy there - with all the churches closing all over the state due to the pedophilia crises (and anyone with two brain cells firing at the same time know that this IS the reason for the closings regardless of what the official RC position is), this is one of the churches that was given the okay to expand. 1 mile away in Lawrence - a poor minority-heavily populated town, churches closing all over.

RC THY NAME IS HYPOCRISY!

Leave the church, I say. Quit giving it your money (or she should stop giving it her money). Then they will get the message - when it hurts 'em in the pocketbook.

Find a liberal Episcopal church or go to UU, UCC, or Church of Religious Science, or whatever.

No need to deal with this stuff. Makes me so mad. People are no longer worshipping or getting comfort or positive energy or whatever - it is no longer spiritual. It's all pro-Bush politics or coercion. I wouldn't put up with it, and she's right to expose it and show outrage! I would.

EOR. Thanks for listening (or reading or whatever).

'People are no longer worshipping or getting comfort or positive energy or whatever - it is no longer spiritual. It's all pro-Bush politics or coercion.', very wise words.

that found that if all of the churches in the US were taxed, we could pay off the deficit and/or the national debt, or something like that? pretty interesting if true.

:hi:

taxing churches is a bad idea.

She is a lifelong member of the church, and all of a sudden she is a "bad example"? It's not like she was proposing doing a strip tease in the middle of the Mass.

take sides in state business you get taxed. I don't know about you but I go to church for spiritual nourishment not to get told that I am committing sin if I vote for Kerry. Especially when the browbeating comes from the incredibly hypocritical Catholic church who can't even take care of their own house.

Why should they get special treatment?

They are politicizing their "mission" - they should be taxed - just like everyone else.

I'm FOR separation of church and state - I'm tired of my taxes going to subsidize them.

What is so pro-life about legislating for medically UNSAFE and ILLEGAL abortion? That's what the argument IS about and should be about.

SAFE and LEGAL abortion? or UNSAFE and ILLEGAL abortion?

I'm tired of them framing the LEGAL issue as a MORAL one. That has GOT TO CHANGE! It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MORAL ISSUE! Future ad campaigns to denigrate Repub candidates must emphasize that they wish to legislate for unsafe and illegal abortions, placing women's physical and emotional health in GRAVE danger and so on -

Playing the name game as Republicans like to do, like calling estate tax the death tax, we should call so called pro-life supporters the "back alley abortion proponents."

Whad'ya think?

--IMM

I wonder how many "pro-life" people ever think of that? Or are they so blinded by some sense of self-absorbed narcissistic piety? Too afraid of going to "hell" to think otherwise and don't want to take any chances?

I remember about 10 years ago, Thomas Berry (a wonderful ecotheologian) said the best thing for all of us would be to put down the Bible for about 100 years. I don't mean to sound offensive to the wisdom and story contained in this great literary compilation. But I think his point was that people are living for the fears of what will happen to them in the afterlife rather than living for what is happening now. The GOP moral right KoolAid is not much different than that drunk by the Heaven's Gaters -

We were told not to worry about a Vatican influence on the American political scene. Now bishops actively worked for the reselection of George W. Bush.

and John Paul 1 as well - he was considering contraceptives citing the real crime was 35,000 children dying a day because of hunger. I believe his murder was "fictionally" depicted in Godfather III.

If the bishops pulled the same crap when John F Kennedy was running, Kennedy would have been lucky to have won Massachusetts.

and not to worry about it.

When the pedophiles are kicked out of YOUR church, then I'll listen to you.

Until then, STFU!

now we get to experience the middle ages first hand, where religous figures determine our political system and our society rejects science and facts.

I'm in California and I WANT OUT OF JESUSLAND!

Who will join me?

Just look at the map. We're divided along the same lines as we were in the Civil War. We're not going to get along - period.

and L'Italien will be her rep. My cousins grew up going to St. Augustine's-I'm sure they'll be pissed when they read this article.

Rep.BarbaraL'Italien@hou.state.ma.us

Roe v Wade is the law of the land, for now at least. The priest wants her NOT to represent American law?

Being pro-choice simply means you don't want the government creating laws that control a women's body, it doesn't mean you morally agree with the act of abortion. Besides, there are plenty of other issues the Catholic church considers mortal sins that it is not clamoring the government to make illegal.

into law, when that granite statue thing was going on in Alabama.

and war. How come they aren't going after the supporters of the death penalty and the war. There was a time, too, when the church joined in the fight for social and economic justice. Seems they've forgotten everything but abortion.

There are factions within the church, there are lots of individual parishes that still work really hard for social justice. It's just the abortion wing seems to be getting all the press lately.

How about torture? Does the Catholic church take a position on any of these things, or is the priest just picking the most convenient outrage?

I wonder where he's from? Attitudes like his will alienate Mass. Catholics, many of whom have already left the Church because of the pedophilia scandals.

What a way to make an entrance!

Hypocrisy, I say.

step down? They are pro choice, as well as dozens of other republican moderates. Time for the Church to start cleaning up their own house & if they want to get involved in politics, its time to pay up too.

teaching on abortion when she expresses pro-choice opinions, so there is logic to priests disciplining such parishioners. But it's a logic focused on technicalities and it's not being extended to Republican pols who are pro-choice or to other stances opposed to Church teachings. Like, say, enabling the rich to get richer while earning power continues to decline for wageowners, overtime pay is outlawed, personal bankruptcy is virtually outlawed (protecting the credit card companies.)

More from the article:

"L'Italien said she has spoken out against the death penalty and casino gambling, and considers her defining issues as her work for the elderly and the disabled. But she said Cleary seemed only interested in her stance on abortion. L'Italien said she cannot make the decision of reproductive choice for anyone else."


If priests are going to get serious about bringing about a culture of life (and that's a Catholic phrase, by the way, that Bush** has co-opted), then they need to look at all the life issues, including the death penalty, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and at helping all those in need -- the hungry, sick, elderly, disabled, and poor, and all those who are persecuted, as well as working to save the lives of unborn children. Cardinal Bernardin called it the "seamless garment" ethic of life. Abortion is only a part of the seamless garment.

Despite official Catholic opposition to abortion, I think Fr. Cleary is stepping outside the guidelines from the Vatican and those from the US Conference of Catholic bishops regarding elected officials. I hope he is reigned in and counseled to allow Rep. L'Italien continue serving as cantor and working with the youth choir.

NO. It is exactly because a Democrat is Catholic that pro-choice is the only option. The Church's position on abortion is a flat out NO. No exceptions whatsoever. The mother has to literally be dying before an abortion can be done. Birth control causes blastocysts to be passed, the Church is against that too. How can an honest Catholic be anything but pro-choice? You can't legislate all this stuff and any thinking person knows that.

church is going against its most basic principal.. "primacy of conscience"...

There's that too. Allowing the horror of back alley abortions is pretty immoral too.

Priest on sunday said "catholics have a responsibilty to help show which reseach is moral"...and my thought was "what is moral about allowing people to suffer and die horrible torturous deaths when God has given us ways to prevent and alleviate these"...

Consience has to be subordianted to church doctine.

As the encyclicals of the past 30 years have shown, when primacy is given to the conscience, it is assumed that it is an INFORMED conscience ... that is, informed by the Church moral teachings ... teachings that range from social justice to the value of human life in its most vulnerable forms.

disagrees w/official church teaching as long as it is not a matter of an infallible teaching (which abortion is not and never can be because an infallible declaration can not go against a previous popes teaching)then the church can not deem it as incorrect. You can be pro-choice and catholic and have reached that belief w/a fully formed and informed conscience.

but primacy of conscience is most certainly not the Catholic Church's most basic principle. In fact, it's most basic principle is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He died in pain and agony to redeem our sins. Next up is that we must accept the Word. Primacy of conscience is somewhere much further down the list.

Drew Garrett

They are two different things.

Do whips and leather turn you on? Where the hell does any Priest get off discliplining a member of the church?

You couldn't pay me to be a catholic. I prefer my church's democratic government and philosophy.

Here is the contact info:

http://www.staugustineparish.org/staff.html
St. Augustine's Parish
43 Essex St.
Andover, MA 01810-3779
(978) 475-0050

Email: StAugCC@comcast.net

May I suggest you contact the archbishop and let him know that if the Church insists on mixing politics with religion it should lose it's tax exempt status; and as a state rep you would have no problem introducing such a bill in the house.


The Most Reverend Seán Patrick O'Malley
Archbishop of Boston
Office:
2121 Commonwealth Av.
Boston, MA 02135-3192
Phone: 617-782-2544
FAX: 617-782-8358

Please call or/and fax him and let them know you don't want your church mixing politics with religion; and if they insist on doing so, tell them you will support a bill making them lose their tax exempt status.

This has got to end now.

I would, with heavy heart, leave that denomination and seek out one that embraced ideals more consonant with mine.

For example, I know of at least one woman who wanted to enter the priesthood. Obviously this was an absurd concept. She was a very strong Catholic, but she joined another denomination, and I believe that she is now entering the clergy.

Just a thought.

position. They were Catholics and sorrowfully left a church which demanded they ignore God's plan for their lives.

and had to do a lot of soul searching before doing so, incidents like this only prove me right that i did the correct thing

somebody who had had a divorce?

...since he doesn't seem to be able to handle the task of leading a congregation in the United States.

...but this is the true face of institutional Christianity. To them, religion is simply "politics by other means". I've long been of the opinion that Rome never died, but rather evolved into a religious institution instead of a political one. Which one has a better chance of long-term power? We all know the answer.

and liberals of the faith) NOT claim him as one of MY PRIESTS.

"To them, religion is simply "politics by other means"."

And they wonder why Democrats attend church less frequently? It's because we're not welcome.

...but George Bush is the true face of institutional America. To Americans, politics is simply "oppression by other means". I've long been of the opinion that Nazi-ism never died, but rather evolved into an American institution instead of a German one. Which one has a better chance of long-term power? We all know the answer.

That is why, no matter what you say, I am opposed to all Americans and to America itself - as an institution.

Yeah, keep attending church, see where it gets you

on something.

Jay

"Cleary says he has no problems with L'Italien receiving Communion or working with children "behind the scenes."

Look, buddy, are you doing this because you truly believe she is in the wrong or are you just doing it for appearance's sake or to appease some other people in the congregation? I hope L'Italien will find a church where she is accepted and I hope this horrifies her enough to get vocal about the separation of church and state.

That church needs a new pastor.

due to the pedophile scandal.I was raised strict "Boston Irish catholic"...Ma. is liberal....I do not think we will hear support for Fr.Cleary......I would love to know what he did do during the "pedophile cover up" that the Catholic Church engaged in for years and how he feels about that and what he did to speak out about it....(I no longer attend Mass)

have closed, you should get involved with the church and work within the church to change it's current leadership.

The church isn't going to go away because you left it. It's still going to be a powerhouse. Don't let folks like the pastor of this church lead that powerhouse as you retreat back into a shell.

There are many many other folks within the church who feel the same way as you do about pastors like this. Organize them! Rally your friends! Vote at the church buisness meetings. Never give up!

You are being manipulated into leaving the church. Don't let priests like this guy keep their power.

Since many churches have begun to involve themselves in the political processes it is time to revoke their tax-exempt status.
We need a movement to demand that those churches that become politically active must pay their fair share of taxes.

They will need to stop feeding at the American taxpayer's trough.

It's growing harder and harder to say i'm a Catholic. We condemn those who represent the rights of the people rather than the religion in public life on one issue, but when the death penalty and Iraq war come into play, there is no comment on the politician. Just hypocrisy at its finest to get those paychecks. Truly disgusting.

but there is a very vocal minority of ultra conservatives trying to over the RCC...and they get a lot of press w/their antics...

My priest on sunday started his sermon saying "My grandfather would have only heard the part of the reading that said "if you don't work you should not expect to eat"..not that he is a demogogical republican..."...sadly he felt the need to later apologize for the statement out of fear of reprisals by those repubs...and another priest used to tell the church on "right to life sunday" that he didn't want to see a single church member holding up protest signs at PP, if they were concerned about *Life* then they needed to spend the day volunteering at soup kitchens and hotlines....

Lumping all catholics and all priest in w/these ultra conservative fanatics is no more fair or right then lumping all americans in w/the freepers that voted for Bush and against gay rights, etc....

Cardinals reign in the "Rouge USA Priests and Bishops."

I wish that my fellow Catholics would understand that the Protestant Evangelicals consider us as *evil* as the Muslims and Jews. The way our Church allows itself to be high jacked by the radical protestant politicians will always be a true mystery to me, i.e., it's very transparent to those Catholics who are morally mature and mentally balanced.

First, labeling all evangelicals as the problem shows your lack of understanding about what an evangelical is. If you are talking about the dominionists then say so. But don't blame other people for the decisions your priests and clerics are making.

conservative fundies are and how they act...and the conservative fundies in the RCC are the same ilk with the same agenda...IMO they are all supping w/satan...

just as every contentious DUer who get's pissy with me is not my buddy. Got it? Get it? With fellow Democratic member respect GOOD! Peace.

On Edit: You're right in one regard, I should qualify my statement to Protestant "Right Wing" Evangelicals.

Plus they are not MY (a liberal practicing Catholic) Priests. I'm a member of Pax Christi - research that organization and truly learn about MY faith.

As someone who was raised a Catholic, attended Catholic school, and no longer attends church or practices the faith in any way. I have no problem with cutting ties to hypocritical organizations that support illegal and immoral war mongers. I wish more people would wake up and realize the money you contribute is being used for the opposite of what you are contributing it for. Cut off the money and watch how fast this bullshit stops.

Based on church teaching the priest was right in asking the woman to step down...you cannot be in a leadership/teaching role in the church if you do not believe the basic foundations of the church...one being that human life is sacred from conception to natural death...therefore her stance on abortion is the reason she was asked to step down...it was the right thing for the priest to do.

The woman shouldn't be taking the Eucharist let alone having a leadership role.

the Eucharist and let her work with children "behind the scenes."

If human life is sacred from conception to natural death, then the war cheerleaders should be kicked out too. Also the pro-death penalty church members. It's not OK when people narrow the definition of pro-life to fit their own little political agenda.

if you'll forgive the expression, a "nuanced" approach to the value of human life. The Church has consistently opposed the death penalty, recognizing the value of even a guilty murderer. But the phrase "whole cloth pro-life" can be misleading. While the Church values the dignity of all human lives, it places greater emphasis on protecting VULNERABLE (sorry, I can't find the italics) life ... ie, the unborn, the very sick, the elderly.

But wait a minute, you say. The Church is either pro-life completely or its not. Well, not so fast! As I said above, the Church's view is nuanced. For example, since the time of St. Augustine, the Church has crafted a "just war" policy ... a doctrine that says sometimes it's just and even necessary to wage war, if it would mean the greater protection of life, especially the vulnerable (as has been noted here, the Church did not find the Iraq conflict to fall into the "just war" category).

What does this all mean? The priest is right and not inconsistent to insist that someone who supports choice step down from a position in prominence while NOT insisting someone who is ... say, pro-death penalty ... from stepping down. The pro-death penalty position a parishoner had would be subject to correction, but it is not as grievous as supporting abortion rights.

Let's be honest -- the reason why this person was asked to step down is because of her public work ... she openly supports choice, and that gives scandal to the Church.

she is standing on one of the basic principals of church teaching which is primacy of conscience...only if she procured an abortion for herself or performed or actively procured on for someone else..AND believed with a fully informed conscience that by doing so she was committing a sin would she be in conflict w/the principals of the Catholic Church.

That is false...reread Catholic Doctrine

if someone had used contraceptives, had premarital sex, had a divorce, masturbated, etc...they should be kicked out too.

hell, if they are for the Iraq war, they should be kicked out. mass murder of civilians.

deals with this issue?

a couple of places you can start are: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/canonl.htm

and

"Catholics and Abortion: Notes on Canon Law."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:PfL6LoolZ-oJ:www.catholicsforchoice.org/spanish/pdf/canon_law_no1.pdf+(catholics+and+abortion+notes+on+canon+law)&hl=en or if you have adobe reader http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/spanish/pdf/canon_law_no1.pdf

you might also want to read Gaudium et Spes.
and

http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/CONSC.TXT

How then do we form a right conscience? Catholics seek to inform their consciences according to
reason and revelation as guided by Church teachings. They believe that by "their faith, aroused and
sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority
(magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of human beings, but truly the word of
God." (Vatican II, The Church (1964), §12). It is to the pope and the bishops that this teaching
authority is entrusted. As the Second Vatican Council put it: "in matters of faith and morals, the
bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful, for their part, are obliged to accept their
bishops' teaching with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind" (The Church (1964), §25). Thus
for a Catholic to disagree with what the Church teaches on abortion, he or she would need to have
very clear reasons and convictions. These could only follow a genuine search for meaning through
docility to church teaching, reading, prayer, taking counsel, developing the virtue of prudence, and
so on. Any conflict would then be within the person's conscience, rather than between conscience
and some alien magisterial authority.

In forming their consciences the faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain
teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth.
It is her duty to proclaim and teach with authority the truth which is Christ and, at the same
time, to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring
from human nature itself.
- Second Vatican Council, On Religious Liberty (1965), §14

and the Catholic Church do not officially recognize divorce (marriage is defined as until death), should divorced people be allowed to receive the Eucharist? Should they be allowed to partake in church activities? Should they be arrested for committing adultery (since divorce is not recognized) or polygymy?
Or do you take the Chinese menu approach...you'll take a little from Column A and a little from Column B (to suit your purposes) but you're not going to accept the entire menu?
And since sexual activity outside of marriage is against Church doctrine, should only those who have abstained be allowed to partake...and lead church activities?
Your church is now down to two members. And one is the priest.

Not that thats surprising (i.e. $$$ for forgiveness).

yet nary a peep about G.W. Bush and the wars he launched, the rising abortions rates under him because people cannot afford to have children, the cutting of social programs and services, and most of all, Bush mocking, on video, a Karla Faye Tucker asking for clemency while he was "Texecutioner" Governor of Texas.

Mocks Tucker's plea for clemency to conservative newspaper writer Tucker Carlson who reports it. Bush, Carlson wrote, ridiculed the inmate by affecting a whimpering woman: "Please, don't kill me." (Washington Post, 7/6/00)
http://www.mbpolitics.com/Bush2000/BushLegacyTexecutioner.htm


Yeah, a clump of undifferentiated cells, potential but not yet human life, is so important, but people living, breathing today... fuck 'em!

What's also so interesting is the media will carry these stories all over, but any priest who questions Bush will never be heard.

Goes to show the agenda and hypocrisy of many in today's organized religion, the media, and our society. Little wonder why we're headed for the trash bin of history!

We must look within ... Priests are not to be our "religion cops" ... each individual must search within him or herself whether they are being true to the whole meaning of what it is to be Pro-Life and yet, not legislate the morality of abortion ... we are pro-life only by being an example to others NOT by forcing our morality on others.

A visible role as a leader in the Church is another. IF she is truly working from a position of 'primacy of conscience' she must also accept the consequences of her conslusion - she cannot lead within the Church. Doesn't mean that she's damned to Hell, or that she isn't capable of receiveing communion; but she can't lead

she is not bringing her political beliefs into the church...If she was then it would be different.

She is a public figure whose positions on these topics is public knowledge. Heck, I'm sure she issues campaign literature that explains her position quite clearly and sends it out by mass mailings. Her position in the Church is also public knowledge.

Right?

A member of Veterans for Peace might very well support the invasion of Iran pre-emptively. Its his right. But if he wrote books on it, went on talk shows about it, and issued flyers i bet Veterans for Peace would ask him to step down as a local chapter leader who gives press interviews. Right?

If you want to call yourself a Shriner you must pay dues, attend meetings, and keep their bylaws. Same with the boy scouts, the girl scouts, the moose lodge, and the Democratic Party. If you don't, they can ask you to leave. And they are free to place you in leadership positions and remove you, too.

Right?

But it seems that religious groups *can't* determine who is and who isn't a member and cannot determine who is or is not a leader. Because they are religious groups and they can't.... What? Speak? Express their beliefs? Act on their convictions?

I think this attitude that religious groups and members of religious groups who *agree* with their teachings should and must be silenced is terrifyingly dangerous. It sounds like a lot of people are eager to tell a religious group they cannot speak!

Read up on Primacy of Conscience and on Abortion in Canon Law. I have posted info on this other places in this thread. She is in opposition to one viewpoint in the church. Which btw goes agains the American Council of Bishops Statement. The priest should be censored by the Bishops Council.

I actually have a degree in Catholic Theology. Primacy of correctly formed conscience is a private matter. The Church itself, however, does not subordinate its role as a teaching institution and giude to the conscience of one individual. The priest should *not* be disciplined because he did not deny communion. He does, however, have a duty to the Church to 'avoid scandal' by having a lay leader who publically contravenes clear Church teachings. That is *also* a direct quote of the American Bishops.

Being in opposition to one teching of the Church will not get her excommunicated in and of itself, nor denied communion. BUT she has not inherent "right" to any position within the parish. Her public opposition to a moral teaching of the Church means that she should not be in a public leadership position within the parish.

She can believe what she wants, but if it is public, she must accept the consequences.

subscribe to one college of thought within the church...so sorry but doesn't impress me much...

My son went to a seminary high school...I have had conversations w/plenty of very learned priest on this matter (both those who entered the priesthood before and after Vatican II and both American born and European born)..

Just guessing, but from what you have written I would place you in the Dominican Camp (did you get your degree from Marquette by any chance?)...personally I prefer the Jesuits...

She is in communion and agreement with the church as long as she can show that her stance is made w/full conscience formation.

The priest has caused a *public scandal* by trying to bully a politician into breaking the law of the land concerning separation of church and state. This is not a theocracy.

But after your comments to refer to canon law, et. al. I thought I'd point out that I know it already.

I went to St. Thomas - Jesuit. I considered moving to the Chaldean Rite so that I could become a priest.

What law was broken? No, seriously - what law? Did the priest tell her to vote against abortion or burn in Hell? Did he tell her to vote a certain way or be denied communion?

No. He asked her (read that again - asked her) to step down from a leadership role in the Church because her personal beliefs; personal beliefs that are, by the nature of her position, public. Personal beliefs that conflict with the clear moral teachings of the Church and, thus, scandalize her fellow Catholics that are in ageement with the Church on all moral issues. And if she would change her vote because she can't lead the choir anymore, who needs her?

If she is in full communion with the Church she (and you) will understand that part and parcel of communion is obedience. The Church determines who is and is not in leadership positions within the Church.

And please go back and re-read about conscience formation. Personal conscience is not paramount over dogmatic knowledge. And even a properly formed conscience does not remove you from the discipline of the Church.

who should step down. While personal conscience is not paramount over dogmatic it is equal to it...as the Vatican has assured in DIGNITATIS HUMANAE...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

Stop being disingenuous. Her personal opinions are a matter of public record through her own actions. He approached her quietly in her own home and asked her a question. How do you think his actions became public? She shouted them from the rooftops, that's how. And probably for personal political gain, IMO.

As far as Dignitatis Humanae, yes - a person has freedom or religious conscience. No doubt. But that doesn't mean that anyone with freedom of religious conscience can call themselves a Catholic, fully participate in the Eucharist, or have a leadership role! You are mixing apples and oranges. If my conscience leads me to believe Jesus was *not* divine, abortion is morally acceptable, and that the Eucharist is just bread and wine I am free to do so - but I am not free to call myself a Catholic.

What you seem to be saying is that if I was a self-proclaimed Muslim Senator who decided that the Koran's prohibitions didn't include grain alcohol and I stated so publically many times while slamming shots, then the mullah of my mosque would not be able to tell me to stop leading prayers, let alone state that I am not a Muslim. That's silly! You are saying that religious groups have no voice, no right to determine their own leaders (let alone members) or define themselves.

Then the priest needs to remove from leadership positions, any who support the war, the death penalty, as these are things that the church has spoken against.

It also needs to deny the Eucharist to these same people as well as those who have committed adultery, or who have been divorced and have remarried.

As a Catholic, who took communion each and every week and (horrors!!!) served on Pastoral Council, it is with the Democrats that the Church most closely aligns their belief systems. The Pope comes out against a farce of a war, and Catholics ignore him. The Vatican tells us to vote based on the whole, not the pieces, of ideology, and Catholics ignore the Vatican. Wait until the bible thumpers kick them back to the curb where they feel they belong. You've been USED Catholics...wake up and see it. Oh, and my role was one of great leadership. Put that in your pipe (filled with hash, perhpaps?) and smoke it.

:hi:

Oh, Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I kept telling people to go to http://www.votingcatholic.org and take the quiz.....Kerry was much more in line w/the stance of the Bishops then Bush was on every issue except abortion and stem cell...the quiz results are based on Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility; which is a statement put out every 4 yrs by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops....

dont be knocking the hash! :)

Is that the crud you get in your underwear after wearing them all day?

an unjust war and the death penalty?

Please, sell it somewhere where people have lower IQs.

Why would someone become or remain a Catholic, and then be surprised or outraged by church discipline that follows the known positions of the church? Isn't that like joining a bird-watching club and then complaining when the other members don't want to sky dive?

We have a serious problem of religious doctrines being imposed on us in the public realm and on our government. What the church does, with its voluntary membership, providing that it is within the law, seems to me to be a distraction from the very real threat of theocracy.

If the priest is in fact out of line with church teachings and practices, then the church will handle that. Until and unless it effects me outside of the church, or violates criminal codes, it isn't an issue of public concern.

Much of this thread is discussing error on the priest's part in some third realm - politics - not in regards to church doctrine and not in regards to civil law. He may be politically in error, but he is not operating in the political realm.

OK. I'll buy that when the church asks every woman who uses birth control to step down. When they deny the Eucharist to everyone who has had premarital sex or a divorce....and so on.....but then it won't really be problem because there won't be anyone left now will there. It's funny that abortion is the only issue that is coming in this fashion. It seems more about politics than church doctrine. I dare you to find me a catholic who agrees with absolutely EVER thing the church says. I bet they are out there, but don't constitute the majority.

If a member of the church were to publicly decry belief in transsubstantiation and continued making a stink out of it. And spread doctrine contrary to that of the church. He/she would likely be told to leave.

I really think that this is more of a matter of the church says something, and although you can think something else and even possibly do something else privately, you are not allowed to go out in public and proclaim that you are right (which implies the church is wrong).

You silly!

--IMM

After all, they need more kiddies to molest and for cannon fodder. Hypocrites.

"No cash for you if you have a Dem in any position of authority. Keep buggerin' the li'l boys for all I care . . ."

A church is a purely voluntary organization. They have to absolute right to set whatever standard they want to for membership, and for holding office in the organization. That does not mean that a church is always morally right in any action that it might take, but it does have the legal right.

keep a tax exempt status. That is *the* major requirement for their tax exempt status.

That said, the congregation also has the option to find a new pastor. I think that, considering where this church is located, the congregation will most assuredly be looking for a new pastor.

To be a member of a church a person has to hold to the doctrines of that church. If the member does not, they can be expelled. If the doctrine of the church is X, and the member is antiX, they church can take internal measures. And it can do that without direct partisan bias, and pass the tax exempt test. Indirect bias doesn't count.

Otherwise, churches would have to silent on any issue that became controversial.

Further, any attempt to remove the churches tax exempt status would unite the Christian Left, (There is such a thing.) and the Christian Right in opposition to said measure. Removing the tax exempt status just ain't gonna happen.

It's like a disease.

-----------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

well accepted as the earliest point of post womb viability...but a scan of a 21 wk fetus has no impact on the majority of abortions which occur before the 12 wk point...

you assume we are out to kill off babies. Nothing could be further from the truth. We just do not want to _force_ 13 year olds into giving birth to their own brother or sister, you see?

-----------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

ultrasounds don't change facts. Fact is that women can not be forced into involuntary servitude.

Fact is that the church is opposed to many things and is not asking republican voters to step down due to support for unjust war or the death penalty or injustice agaisnt poor and powerless people.

I'm neither a Christian or against abortion, but when I took a look at that link, I saw a very nicely done book that explains quite well the development process. I'd have no problems showing it to my 3-year old daughter if/when she asks where she came from. (Except having to explain that the birth process was slightly different for her because a c-section was needed.)

Step #1:

Ask the priest how many babies his president has killed in Iraq.

Step #2:

While the priest stands there "hemming and hawing", ask him why you should be going to a church whose preist advocates the killing of babies. Then tell the priest what he can do to himself in "Cheney-clear" language.

Step #3:

Find a new church. There are plenty of them around, and not all of them are under the control of some self-righteous right-wing 'moran'.


It's so simple, really.

For what it's worth, I'm a PhD student in Catholic theology and a lawyer. OK, I'm just saying that to build up my street cred on this subject.

First off, please let's cool it with the whole "But what about the sex scandal thing!" It's like attacking the Democratic Party because of mob ties in Chicago while ignoring all the good it's done.

I understand that the legislator is upset. But to be in such a prominent position in the Church itself (lector, choir member) and hold views contrary to Church teaching puts the faith in a scandalous light. What's the message here --- it's OK to vote and speak in defense of pro-choice positions, which are contrary to church teaching, and still have a prominent position in the Church? It's not allowed. An analogy, weak as it might be, is to give Zell Miller a chairmanship.

What are they teaching in law schools these days? Did you miss the part about equal treatment? Or did this priest poll the people who voted republican? They are publically supporting positions against church doctrine.

Yes, as a lawyer, I'm aware of equal protection and all its constitutional glory. But it doesn't apply here.

In your opinion, please to explain how equal protection would apply here?

As far as I can see it, she would have to bring suit, claiming that she was discriminated against because of her political beliefs. And the Church would argue the First Amendment ... the Free Exercise clause. As would become apparent, the beloved and much-misunderstood "separation of church and state" would prevent the government from interfering in the parish's internal affairs.

Right Wing Evangelical Protestant ... bet you believe that us Catholics are just as much pseudo religious faith as the Muslims and Jews? Also betcha believe that we'll go straight to hell and only YOU (Right wing bible thumping' Protestants) will be with God in Heaven?

No, you would not be so domineering if you were the real deal.

because when I was in high school, the protestant kids called me "Super-Catholic!"

To set your mind at ease, I'm a graduate from both CUA law school and CUA's theology department. (I did undergrad at UNC). I'm a life-long Catholic (used to be an altar boy), thought about becoming a priest, but decided I'd rather teach theology. I'm specializing in sacramental theology, but I also have some research in Trinitarian theology. I used to belong to the Community of St. Egidio before I moved.

How many faeries can dance on the head of a pin?

--IMM

you were using your law degree for creds.

The priest is full of it, he is also a hypocrite.

church and state are separate and that the message of Christ is love and help to those in need. That our personal beliefs have no place in law and that it is our duty as Catholics to take care of those in need, even if we personally disagree w/their choices.

BTW there is no one *catholic* belief about abortion...a quick review of abortion stances of the different Popes should make that very clear. For every theologian who argues that Canon Law says one thing about Primacy of Conscience and about Abortion there is another who says it says another..and both can offer compelling documentation to support their stance. What it comes down to is whether or not you believe in separation of Church and State and what you want laws in this country based on.

The politician in question was not *promoting* abortion..she was not saying it was right or good or even claiming there is ever justification for it...instead she was doing her job...which is to base laws concerning medical issues on medical information. There is no place for theology in abortion laws, in the US. And for religious people to claimt there is means the churches are not doing their job. If churches are opposed to abortion then they should support the dems in order to promote social help and changes so that women believe they have other options besides abortion instead of trying to abdicate their job through legal means.

expressing for months now. Your person is a breath of fresh air for many of us thoughtful (believe in the separation of Church and State) practicing Catholics. :-)

and completely misunderstood by our society.

Sorry to say so.

Are you familiar with John Murray? He was a Jesuit priest who wrote extensively on the "Genius of America" ... to Murray, the beauty of America is that the government has no claim on the truth ... the First Amendment is a so-called "Article of Peace" because it doesn't demand anyone believe ... only that the government get out of the "truth" business and let individual people decide "what is truth".

Only problem for practicing Catholics is that we've heard this question ("What is truth?") before and we know the answer. The God of Revelation, revealed and perfected in the person of Jesus Christ, is the Truth.

Critics of Murray contend, and I agree with them, is that while the government SAYS it has no claim on the truth, and that it only guarantees freedom against coercion, it in fact installs its own kind of truth and hands that down to the population. The fact is, the government provides freedom FROM coercion ("don't tell a person how to worship") ... government has a hand in shaping an a-theistic culture (not atheistic, but a-theistic ... that is, without God). Faith and Church are actively discouraged from participating in the societal conversation, and the common good is no longer measured by piety but by wealth (sort of like the Protestant work ethic ... see Weber).

How can Catholics deny there is no truth when we know there is?

OK, well, what's the solution? Read Dignitatis Humanae ... JPII has made it very clear that as Catholics we have a duty to recognize freedom of religion, but that does not mean we abdicate our position as "the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church."

You know who says this very clearly? Von Balthasar and Dr. David Schindler ... Schindler sits on the Council of the Laity.

if you don't want the state to interfer with churches in regard to how they worship then you cant demand that the government allow churches to tell it how to govern. It really is that simple..

btw I prefer Pope John XXIII to Pope John Paul II...esp. his book Pacem in Terris....

Anyone who is religious has no right to vote their beliefs? Only agnostics and atheits can say that the vote from conviction? If I was a buddhist and told my congresswoman I want her to support measures that would make vegetarianism more attractive because of my presonal, religious beliefs - would I be breaking the wall of separation? If a Catholic priest organized a mass protest against the war in Iraq, would you be so upset?

communion or refuse to allow you to participate in the church...absolutely...or if the only reason they would vote for or against the law was relgious ones, that had no scientific or medical reasoning...absolutely.

Or if they did it as an official church action, to try and force politicians to do something based on religious reasons...again absolutely.

If the only reason you can give for wanting to make something illegal is based on religious beliefs then it is against the Constitution to do so...

The US is not a Theocracy and I am completely against these attempts to turn it into one.

So, if a religious group decides to ask a member to curb their activities or remove themselves from the group for doing things against the group's rules or morals, that interference is teh "establishment of religion"? Its not freedom *from* religion, is freedom *of* religion AND religious expression. Telling religious people and churches they can't speak their convictions is just as unconstitutional as making someone pay taxes that support the Anglican church. You are singling out religious people and telling them they can't speak as they wish.

The priest didn't tell her "vote this way" or "vote that way", he said "because of your public convictions which differ from those of our group, please remove yourself from a public position in this group". And now you claim that that is illegal for him to do. Hogwash! Your attitude is more dangerous than that of the priest!

Buddhists can't lobby congressmen against war and violence because their convictions are religious; A self-proclaimed Shaker senator who is found to beat his wife and kids can't be admonished by his congregation because their opposition to all violence is religious-based.

Right?

own church absolutely. The politician in question is not in conflict with church law. Therefore for the priest to claim she is and refuse to allow her to participate in church leadership roles is wrong and also by doing so is he is attempting to use relgion to force political votes....which is a violation of church and state laws in the US. If any other religion or church did this I would be just as upset.

BTW I am catholic.

"for the priest to claim she is and refuse to allow her to participate in church leadership roles is wrong and also by doing so is he is attempting to use relgion to force political votes....which is a violation of church and state laws in the US."

Absolutely right on the money.

She publically opposes a Church moral teaching (since when did the Church relax its opposition to abortion?). Canon law is pretty clear. And he didn't tell her 'change you mind/vote or else', so if she does have a 'properly formed conscience' her path should be clear.

Again, you are denying the Church the ability to decide who is and is not a member and what they can do about it. If she was getting asked to step down for voting to send troops to Iraq, would you be as upset?

All those nuns protesting the School of the Americas *should* be locked up, right? And the ones protesting landmines? Or the priests that marched with Martin Luther King (and, of course, Martin Luther King himself).

Every single one of them tried or is trying much more directly to 'manipulate' political leaders, all because of religion.

Right? A baptist minister who brings a petition signed by 10,000 Baptists to a senator asking for an increase in aid to the poor - all criminals.

The delegation of priests who went to D.C. and spoke to the Senate about conditions in Iraq and demanded an end to the war - all criminals.


The Dalai Lama who spoke to the president about world peace - deport him!

If your convictions are born of religious impulses and you try to influence people, you are attempting to establish religion!!


The actions of all these people are much more direct than asking a pro-choice congresswoman to not direct choir, don't you think?

Get back to us when the church is persecuting people who vote for war and the death penalty.

is the Church's treatment of pro-choice Democrats. In the past, the Catholic Church has also taken positions on the death penalty and war. Even though I never agreed with the Catholic Church's stands on abortion and birth control, I at least respected the church for its consistency. Unfortunately, it is easy to forget the Catholic Church has taken other stands considering the myopic focus that some members of the Catholic clergy have on abortion.

Those clergymen who want to punish Democratic politicians for their stand on abortion would be wise to study the history of the Catholic Church in this nation. Throughout U.S. history, many Americans regarded Catholics as superstitious and regarded Catholic immigrants with suspicion. For the longest time, a Catholic could not get elected president because of the fear that he would answer to the pope before he answered to the American people. Fortunately, JFK's presidency calmed many people's fears about electing a Catholic president.

However, these clergymen are taking enormous risks with the Catholic Church's standing in the U.S. by punishing Democratic politicians for their stand on the legalization of abortion. Once one of these politicians backs down, non-Catholics are going to start to question the independence of Catholic politicians and may again become afraid of voting for Catholics.

Rome already feel that way. Nothing is going to change their mind.

Despite what the Republicans think, most people do change their minds at some point in their lives. While it is true that most staunchly anti-Catholic bigots will believe what they want to believe, most people are not that narrow-minded. Unless you give them evidence that Catholic politicians are going to vote like their church tells them to, they are not going to believe it.

are divorced people and those who have had sex outside of marriage allowed to partake and lead church activities? Or is abortion the only litmus test? Do you ask all your male parishioners if they've waited until marriage to engage in sex? If not, are they banned from church activities? If not, why not? Isn't adultery and sexual activity outside of marriage against church teaching? And what about divorce? Again, against church doctrine. Marriage is defined until death.
Have all your church leaders been deemed free of sexual activity before marriage? No adultery after marriage? No divorce? No impure thoughts? No birth control?
Your posts reek of hypocrisy.

Confession forgives all sins, even abortion if the person is repentant. We are discussing Catholics in leadership roles who don't consider abortion a sin.

so, this whole theology is very loosey, goosey. I repent. I get to do what I want. There aren't really any "rules". Does this apply to pedophilia also? The priest repents and is reassigned. Then repents. Again.
How convenient.
You haven't explained why the abortion issue is handled separately from the other sins.
Please clarify the differences.

the most serious because they consider it murder of the most innocent of human life.

out Canon Law. It is not a cut and dried issue in the church, no matter how desparately conserves in the church try to claim it is...

equivocating according to personal prejudices with no basis. Birth control? Adultery? Pedophilia? (we KNOW that doesn't get you kicked out...) Seems you're a little slippery with what is and isn't "serious".
The Catholic Church was losing members so they "relaxed the rules". Very elastic when it suits their pocketbook.
Like the Bushies, it's the money. Go ahead and sin. Just keep sending in the money. We'll be quiet. EXCEPT for abortion. We're taking a stand there.
Smells like team hyprocrisy.

None of the sins get you kicked out. The problem is when you advocate that any of this is not a sin, when you are in a position of authority or leadership.

There is a difference between viewing something as a sin versus arguing that it should be illegal. For example, one can view adultery as sin without believing that the state should prosecute adultery as a crime. Someone who is pro-choice can believe that abortion is a sin but still believe that the state should not interfere with a woman's medical decisions.

This is how the Catholic Church sees it. They see the fetus as a person who's life should be protected.

ones who are ultra conservative and beleive (incorrectly) that the church's stance is black and white and has always been that way...

just making stuff up. (talk radio fan?) Nothing you say is based in cathecism. You're bearing false witness. Repent now. Save yourself.

becoming the "American Taliban"!

:scared:

The Church hierarchy is giving parishes the green light to cleanse themselves of those folks who in their eyes don't toe the Church line on everything. This happened to a parish leader someplace out West -- his pastor asked him to more or less sign a "loyalty oath" expressing his unwavering support of all Church teachings, and the guy refused. As a result, he was blacklisted from the parish. This got resolved somehow, but I can't remember exactly how.

The Catholic Church is not immune from the wild-eyed fundies either. It's making it that much more difficult for us moderates. In church, just as in politics, people like me are finding ourselves becoming homeless.

In my opinion, the best thing that could possibly happen to the American Church right now is a good old-fashioned schism. Those of us with common sense -- the ones who want to take Christ's call to serve humanity seriously -- can go on about our business, while the rest of the loonies break out the stakes and lighter fluid and become a church of rigidity and rules. I wish the split would happen tomorrow. Hell, this afternoon wouldn't be soon enough.

Their names were Luther and Calvin.

...the Church never learns from history and is condemned to repeat it.

I am talking about a U.S. split from Rome and the Roman hierarchy. I didn't know you were only allowed one schism in your entire 2,000-year history.

There IS an American Catholic Church ... check the yellow pages. It is not in communion with Rome, though.

then you are not the Catholic Church anymore. This would be another Protestant church.

are feeling their oats because they think they are the reason bush was elected. myself I blame the freakin desperate soccer mom's.

and not men, that makes her in favor of abortion? Why don't we women bring up a law that if a man gets a women pregnant, that didn't want to be pregnant, he must undergo castration? OH NO, that would be a law against just men, but it's perfectly OKAY to have a law that only affects women and now teenage girls are bound by a law that only affects one gender.
So boys and men can go around raping, impregnating and leaving women to raise unplanned pregnancy's and we blame the women by punishing them with laws against them? The human race is just pathetically stupid. And women who support laws that only affect women deserve to lose their civil rights. How dumb can women be?

or did she quit?

Some of you have already said it.....
might happen?

because he was wearing a "Catholics for Kerry" pin. The angry man then "reported" the incident to our pastor.

The next time I get a request from any Catholic charity, I will send it back, tell them to take me off their mailing list and tell them to ask Bush for the money they need.

I'm so sick of this crap.

:silly:

seriously - who is "IN FAVOR OF ABORTION?" THAT'S not the issue. We are NOT IN FAVOR OF ABORTION. We are PRO CHOICE. To me, that's a very different animal.

Why not just leave the church?
You can still pray to your god without one.

reclaim it from the extremist then give up and let them have it...and let people think that they are what the Catholic Church really is....

And she was just reelected by a huge margin. I just wish she didn't have to choose between her church and serving her constituents.

Nice to have ya, neighbor!

yet nary a peep about G.W. Bush and the wars he launched, the rising abortions rates under him because people cannot afford to have children, the cutting of social programs and services, and most of all, Bush mocking, on video, a Karla Faye Tucker asking for clemency while he was "Texecutioner" Governor of Texas.

Mocks Tucker's plea for clemency to conservative newspaper writer Tucker Carlson who reports it. Bush, Carlson wrote, ridiculed the inmate by affecting a whimpering woman: "Please, don't kill me." (Washington Post, 7/6/00)
http://www.mbpolitics.com/Bush2000/BushLegacyTexecution...


Yeah, a clump of undifferentiated cells, potential but not yet human life, is so important, but people living, breathing today... fuck 'em!

What's also so interesting is the media will carry these stories all over, stoking the flames of the fanatics, but any priest who questions Bush will never be heard.

Goes to show the agenda and hypocrisy of many in today's organized religion, the media, and our society. Little wonder why we're headed for the trash bin of history!

She stated a pro-choice opinion.
The church is positively anti-abortion.

She has the right to say whatever she wants, and the church has a right to determine who their group leaders are.

We have the right to say what we want, and to practice whatever religion we want.
The state does not have the right to tell the church what to believe, or how to staff their organization.

She should write a letter to the pope, or a bishop, or pray, or whatever.... or find another church.
This is 100% an issue between her and her church.

She did not state a pro-choice opinion from the choir loft. She is being asked to step down because she is a Democrat.

"This is 100% an issue between her and her church."

So you think it inappropriate for discussion here?

leave, just ONE rogue Priest. Catholics CAN vote for a pro-choice candidate if, weighing all the Pro-Life issues and those pertaining to Social Justice his/her's is the most in line with our beliefs. Numerous Priests and Bishops who are not obnoxious and controlling but appropriately teachers of the faith gave Kerry and overall higher mark.

The sin of abortion does not rank higher in value JUST BECAUSE a group of Catholic MEN (humans are infallible) say it does.

When it comes to receiving communion, it is up to the individual parishioner's conscious per The Vatican. If these right wing Bishops and Priests wish to have "their own way" then they should break ties with the Vatican and no long identify themselves as Catholic.

this act is a legacy of john paul II long in the making. his appointments in the church are reaching their logical conclusion.

even handed at this time. As much as one can disagree with the Pope on a number of issues, you can't say that he's not consistant. Remember, he did not say that this was "a just war" and tried his best to prevent the Iraq invasion second to physically planting himself there in Bagdad.

only pro-choice senators.

there was no consistency from rome or the church in these matters.

I assume you are referring to pederast priest..and you are aware that there is a lower number of those then in the general population and in protestant churches and schools aren't you? The difference is two things: 1. the RCC keeps better records and 2. it is a socially acceptable way to show anti-catholic bias and bigotry.

Nobody is saying that there were not instances of priest breaking their vows in this manner or that it was right...but to single out the Catholic Church and implicate ALL priest in this way is evidence of narrowminded hate and bigotry

because they continue to support a church that continues to cover up this abuse.


To put this in other terms... if say someone found out that a few teachers at their child's school were accused of molesting students, and upon being informed of this, the school board, rather than turn the matter over to the police, transfered the teachers to other schools and paid out hush money to the parents who made the accusation... yet this person still supported the school board and sent their child to the school. Would that person not share some level of blame for supporting those who facilitated the abuse?

If I were a Catholic, I think I'd be leaving the church over this.

The religious right is overreaching. They think they have more of a mandate than they really do. They think they're Bush's favorite constituents, but they're in for a surprise. Bush's true pals are the very wealthy, not the very religious like Jerry Falwell.

She should quit her church and hound the shit outta him. What a Jerk he is.

and is the Pope and Rove aware? After all we're talking big bucks!

Why is it that the church's concern for children seems to only last for the 9 months between conception and birth... after that they really don't care.

I guess they figure that every aborted fetus is one less potential molestation victim.

Moley. The largest charitible organization in the world is Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities, parishes, dioceses, and individuals are argualble doing the most for poor children in the world. From Calcutta slums to the fringe of Rio in Brazil to rural America the majority of money and volunteers going to help starving, poor, uneducated children comes from Catholics, organized by the Church.

So much for "only caring for them for nine months", huh?

And after that bigoted, ignorant remark about Catholics and molestation, why not crack a joke about Jews, just to even things up?

the 'liberation theology' nuns and priests that I grew up with are few and far between. So many of the clergy that served in my parish and taught at my school traveled in Africa and Central America to help the least among us. In Mass., Father Robert Drinan (Jesuit) served as a liberal Democrat in Congress from 1971-81. He was pro-choice, and the Pope ordered him to give up his seat in Congress.

That liberal bent to the Catholic Church has faded. It's a shame.

Charitible giving among Catholics is up, actually, and the numbers of priests, nuns, and missionaries is climbing.

Religious charities are, and have been for a very long time, primarily a method of recruitment. They're taking advantage of desperate people in order to spread their power base. They've done it for hundreds of years.

The fact of the matter is that in many of the places you mentioned, Catholic church's policy and past actions are a major driving factor in helping to create and maintain the dire conditions which they then oh so charitably offer to help with.

Well not really help with... they'll give you a religious education/indoctrination and they'll feed you, and provide immunization to diseases that for the most part were introduced to the native populations by their own missionaries and explores/looters when they first arrived. That's kinda like like offering someone a bandage when you're the one who just injured them, yet expecting credit for your compassion in healing the sick.

It's really the modern form of the conquer and convert policy the church held in centuries past. At least now they use soup kitchens instead of swords to do it. That is at least some progress.

Maybe if they tried handing out condoms instead of bibles, there might not be quite so many starving children. But then I guess that might make for bad business.

To the best of my knowledge there's been no molestation scandal in the Jewish religious community... if there is, let me know and I'll be happy to mention it as well the next time I mention Catholic priest raping kids and being protected by the church.

There have been a number of articles within the Orthodox Jewish community about the 'plague' of abuse within Orthodox and Conservative Jewish ranks. While rarely commented on in the mainstream press, they are easy to find with Google; Give it a try.

Further, the Baptist national convention estimates that abuse by Baptist religious leaders may be as high as 10% - above the national average. Pentecostal leaders are struggling with the same issues.

In the meantime, if every priest *accused* of abuse is actually guilty, then no more than 2% of priests have done such heinous acts - about half the national average for adults.

And all of these groups have at one time or another sheltered their members.

Don't get me started on public school teachers!

As for charities - yeah, I guess you're right. What good is providing food, shelter, medical care, an education, and hope in the face of the fact that the people who receive such help might actually believe that the people providing it might be worth emulating. Those self-interested bastards! How *dare* they feed, clothe, nurture, shelter, and educate people AND explain what motivates them to do so! Pure monsters, I tell you!