and landing on his head.
My response to Nathan’s latest. My responses in purple.
Ms. Kralis writes:
‘Catholic’ pro-abortion politicians are certainly manifest, obstinate and persistent sinners and they are thus subject to the provisions of c.915.First of all, a distinction needs to be made between being pro-abortion and being pro-choice. The term pro-abortion implies that these politicians are bloodthirsty, murderous and looking to take the lives of thousands of unborn babies. However wrong they may be for being pro-choice, I seriously doubt that any of our politicians is actually wanting to kill babies. Instead, I think their views on this issue may come from an (albeit flawed) view of women’s rights. Thus, these are not the murderous butchers that folks like the American Life League would have us believe — they are not trying to kill our children.
Indeed. “Pro-choice” is a euphemism. The definition fo a euphemism is this: Definition: [n] an inoffensive expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive.
It doesn’t change really what we’re talking about but it does tend to color people’s view, which is why euphemisms are used. I kind of doubt that today’s politicians, particularly those in the congress who have had to sit through all the testimony on partial birth abortion etc. don’t “know” what is really going on in an abortion This, in my opinion, is what is so dangerous with euphemisms – it can tend to dilute the meaning and for that reason I refuse to ever use the term “pro -choice.” The choice is about killing a baby.
Now that we’ve cleared that issue up, we need to remember that the bishops are currently the interpreters of Canon Law. Most of the bishops in this country have not interpreted Canon 915 to mean that they must prevent pro-choice politicians from receiving Communion. Cardinal McCarrick, the bishop appointed to lead a task force on this subject for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, is of the opinion that barring pro-choice politicians from Communion is too harsh a step. Only a few radical, apparently right-wing bishops have decided to take this step.
As of now, the “task-force” hasn’t really reached a conclusion on this, not that it matters. Each bishop is in chart of his own diocese and the bishops who are taking this bold move are certainly within their rights to do so. I wonder if Nathan would consider such bishops “radial right-wing” if they were withholding communion from individuals who supported the right to kill and discriminate against homosexuals. I rather doubt it.
Moving on to more from Ms. Kralis:
Not only does this canonical discipline c.915 include the estimated 500 so-called ‘Catholic’ pro-abortion politicians in the U.S., but it also includes other manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners such as homosexual couples approaching the Eucharist arm-in-arm or with sodomite rainbow banners over their shoulders, those divorced and ‘remarried’ without benefit of annulment, directors of abortion mills and Planned Parenthood, Mafia figures, drug lords, notorious criminals, couples living openly in fornication or adultery (this is certainly not an exhaustive list of manifest sinners).The problem is that this is not happening. Yes, pro-choice politicians are being barred from Communion in some dioceses. Yes, in many places homosexuals, the divorced and remarried, and others are being barred from Communion. But others who publicly dissent from the church’s moral teaching are not being barred from receiving Communion. One example is Tony Blair, who received the Eucharist from the pope himself — a man who is not even Catholic, whose policies often openly contradict the church’s teaching authority. Another example if former Boston Archbishop Law, who was never barred from receiving Communion despite his role in the sexual abuse scandal, and who has now been given a prominent position in Rome. If the church is not going to prevent all in public, persistent sin from receiving Communion, she should not prevent anyone. Otherwise, Christ is being used as a cause of division — to alienate some sinners, to pat other sinners on the back, and to scandalize all the faithful.
Nathan apparently missed my point on his last thread. This ban is on sinners who publically refuse to repent. That does NOT include Archbishop Law. We could argue all day on how sincere his regret and remorse are but that’s not the point. Law didn’t publically defend his right to move sex offenders around and protect them. These politicians publicly defend their right to support pro-abortion causes. It’s a big difference.
Other than that, I agree with Nathan that this ban should be more widespread and enforced across the board – maybe that day is coming.
As for Jesus being used to divide –Luke 12 51-53
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
When asked if there’s supposed to be a separation of church and state in America, Ms. Kralis responded:
The Fathers merely wanted to avoid a state church or any other favoring of one Christian denomination over another. In other words, the object was to avoid favoritism and compulsion, nothing more.First of all, this is not how the First Amendment has been interpreted throughout history. While this may be Ms. Kralis’ opinion, and while it may even be the opinion of some bishops, it is not the law. The law is indeed that there should be a separation of church and state, and that no church or group of churches should be controlling our country’s legislative body.
In my opinion, Nathan is saying the same thing as Ms. Kralis. Avoiding a state church IS avoiding a church to control the legislative body. Nathan really has no argument with her there.
If most non-Christian religions believe in the right to choose (most do), and if even some Christian denominations believe in that right (some do), then it follows that legislating against that right, based on religious grounds, would show favoritism toward a particular group of conservative Christian churches. By refusing to legislate against abortion on religious grounds, Sen. Kerry and other pro-choice politicians are honoring their oath to uphold the Constitution, which does not allow faith-based legislation and which does not, according to the Supreme Court, allow the legal denial of abortion.
Then, in my opinion based on Nathan’s argument, Catholics cannot be legislators. It would also mean that if the law of the land should support slavery (as it once did) that Catholic legislators must support it because it is the law. If the law supported the extermination of ethnic groups and homosexuals, the legislators should have to support that because that is the law of the land. This is where Nathan’s argument is severely flawed. The founding fathers never meant that representatives could not use their well-formed consciences in voting for or against bills. I would also point out that this country is very closely divided on the abortion issue so this really isn’t about “ignoring” constituents – well I guess it is about ignoring half of them anyway!
When asked if the church can tell its members how to legislate and vote, Ms. Kralis wrote:
The Church is not asking Catholic legislators to impose her beliefs on unwilling populace.Really? Ms. Kralis cites opposition to abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality (I will not call it sodomy),
Well why not Nathan – that certainly is one aspect of it.
cloning and embryonic stem cell research as necessary for Catholic politicians. However, that’s not how America works. Our representatives are just that — representatives. If the American people want something, and if there is no constitutional reason to deny it, then it must be given to them. It cannot be denied them because the church says so. We are not a Catholic theocracy, we are a diverse democratic republic.
The constitutionality of all of these aspects is subjective and up for debate. That said Nathan really hasn’t countered Ms. Kralis point. The church isn’t imposing anything. It is however finally demanding that Catholic legislators actually live out their faith and kindly not stomp all over Catholic teaching in public.
When asked whether or not the church should prevent people who support the death penalty and the war in Iraq from receiving Communion, Ms. Kralis responded:
The Church has never taught, and does not teach now, that the death penalty and war are evil in all instances.Perhaps not, but the church has taught that the death penalty is only necessary in the rarest of circumstances, and one cannot possibly argue that the current widespread use of capital punishment in the United States in accord with the church’s teaching authority.
However, one COULD argue what constitutes a “rare circumstance.” THOSE parameters too are subjective and open to discussion.
As for the question of war, it’s true that the church has never universally condemned all warfare. But this pope, the current director of the church’s teaching authority, has questioned the justice of this war. One would think that bishops would exercise caution in giving the Body and Blood of Christ to men who may have participated in the unjust taking of lives, the murder of people in whom Christ himself hides to see how we’ll treat him.
Key word there is “may have” where as abortion IS.
Asked about homosexuality and the denial of Communion, Ms. Kralis responded:
Canon 915 states that if they are gravely manifest, obstinate, and persistent in their sins, then they must be denied. The Church condemns the sin of sodomy.Before I even go any further, we’re going to address the use of this term sodomy once and for all, and the necessity of ever using such a profoundly offensive term. The church’s teaching authority no longer even uses the term sodomy, but prefers to seek a more merciful and compassionate approach toward homosexuals. The author, by using a term that she must know is very hurtful to homosexuals, is showing how much she doesn’t care by persistently using the term (persistently participating in grave, manifest sin, perhaps?). If the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith isn’t even calling it sodomy anymore, for Pete’s sake, I don’t think Ms. Kralis needs to be.
That’s because Nathan prefers euphemisms. It is, what it is.
Further responding to the question about homosexuality, Ms. Kralis said:
There are absolutely no grounds for considering same-sex unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.“Marriage is holy”? Let’s talk about heterosexual marriage for a minute, shall we? When former Texas governor Ann Richards was asked whether or not homosexuals should be given the right to marry, she replied with a sarcastic yet truthful comment about how wonderfully heterosexuals have upheld the alleged “sanctity of marriage.”
What I can say, having seen heterosexual marriage and homosexual partnerships, is that I can draw more of an analogy between some of the homosexual partnerships and God’s plan for family than I could between some of the heterosexual marriages and God’s plan for family. The current goings-on in Bud and Bai McFarlane’s marriage is not remotely analogous to God’s plan for family, either, but they are still given the civil right to be married (and to divorce). An abusive marriage is not remotely analogous to God’s plan for family, but abusers are not denied the civil right to marry. In fact, the church does not under any circumstances deny heterosexuals the right to marry — even though such marriages can be, and often are, the antithesis of God’s plan for marriage and family.
So because some marriages fail, all marriage is not sacred? That is a hasty generalization fallacy and certainly could not be supported with any other type of argumentation with any credibility.
What I see from Ms. Kralis is something that she would no doubt condemn many people for: trying to usurp authority that belongs to the bishops. Throughout the article, she acts as an authoritative interpreter of Canon Law, presuming to tell the seminary-trained bishops, who were appointed by popes, how they should be interpreting it. I think they probably have some idea how to interpret it
Wow, so many fallacies, so little time.
Ms. Kralis isn’t usurping anyone’s authority. She is writing a well thought argumentation on the distribution of Communion using several sources.
, which is probably why the vast majority of them haven’t decided to bar pro-choice politicians from receiving Communion.
Well the vast majority also had parts of the sex-scandal in their diocese – so apparently the group opinion isn’t necessarily the right one in all instances as far as the American Bishops are concerned.
The bishops who have decided to do so are part of a very vocal minority, and since they stand opposed to hundreds of other bishops, it appears that they’re wrong.
Stands against? Have the other bishops stood up and condemned the others publicly? Inaction doesn’t necessarily mean opposition. This is an oversimplification fallacy.
Please feel free to leave a comment under the posting, or sign my Spiritbook (guestbook). You can chat with me on the tag board to the right!
