Angry in the Great White North has added another entry to his list of Church vs State posts. Looks like the Pope is going to bring down the hammer, which means Paul Martin and his pet priest Father John Walsh are in trouble.
The Pope and a synod of bishops are considering making it an across-the-board policy that politicians who vote in favour of legislation that runs counter to an issue of morality will be denied communion in any parish church.
Paul Martin will have to drop the phrase “good Catholic” from his resume. And Father Walsh might have to look for a new job. Under this rule, Walsh’s attitude that politicians get a special pass on actually being moral Catholics is rightly identified as so much hogwash. Walsh either plays by the new rulebook or looks for a new team.
Bet this ruling, if adopted, is going to affect a lot of Liberal, Bloc, and NDP MPs. Expect a lot of howling about separation of Church and State, which to these people means one thing: whatever I do is fine!
I don’t expect Pope Benedict to be particular worried about upsetting the likes of Paul Martin. Do you?
Yet Pope Pius XI is criticized and often condemned for not taking a (political) public stand against Nazi atrocities, especially the Holocaust.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark,
Huh?
“Visiting a German synagogue where more than half the congregation perished in Nazi death camps during World War II, Pope Benedict XVI today issued a strong denunciation of anti-Semitism, and a stark acknowledgment of the horrors of the Holocaust.
[..]
The pope called the Shoah, the preferred Hebrew term for the genocide of Jews by the Nazis, “an unspeakable and previously unimaginable crime.”
“COLOGNE, Germany (CNS) — In a visit to a synagogue in his native Germany, Pope Benedict XVI recalled with sorrow the Nazi persecution of the Jews as “the darkest period of German and European history.”
The pope warned of new signs of anti-Semitism today and said the Catholic Church has a duty to remember the Holocaust and to teach its lessons to younger generations who did not witness the “terrible events” that took place before and during World War II.
Toward the end of his Aug. 19 speech, he said Christians and Jews have to respect each other and added, off-the-cuff, “and love each other.””
I look forward to other statements and policies by Pope Benedict. A few less ‘strong’ catholics might be a good thing for the moral well-being of society.
Good Catholic and politician have never belonged in the same sentence. I for one am glad of this recognition. It’s time someone called these guys to account for their choices. I made my choice a long time ago and am comfortable with it. These guys want the best of both worlds. It’s pure hypocrisy.
I tend to agree with the view that if you join a club knowing its rules, you can’t complain when the club enforces those rules. However, the very political aspect (as opposed to theological aspect) of the Catholic Church’s position on this is the picking and ignoring of which of its own theological tenets to enforce in such a public way and which ones not. Capital punishment is a leading example and Angry has responded on this point before with some aplomb to indicate that there is a lot of doctrinal wiggle room for the church (of which the church takes full opportunity to wiggle and prevaricate), and you could say the same about the decision to go to war itself (no turning of the cheek there or even, technically, an eye for an eye since shooting is done without knowledge of who you are trying to kill). But let me focus on another one: keeping the Sabbath holy is also one of the Ten Commandments. If the public actions and private faith cannot be separated, how could the church accept the giving of communion to business men and women as well as politicians who regularly work and travel on Sundays? Acceding to modern practicalities cannot be an excuse if it is commanded by god. Haven’t heard of anyone being refused communion for this though, have we?
Could someone please direct me to the passages in the Bible that state that a core belief of the Roman Catholic Church or of Christianity is not supporting legislation that changes the definition of who can get married to each other? In fact, I’ll make it easier, please direct me to the passages in the Bible that state that any core belief of the Roman Catholic Church or of Christianity relates to marriage at all?
I must have missed it on my first read through of the Bible.
I think if the Roman Catholic Church wants to choose this theological tenet – this supposed core belief – to enforce in a very public and controversial way, they can obviously do so (and I am willing to bet they don’t really care what I think one way or the other), but it will further erode their importance and power in the modern Western world. I have no doubt that if they want to take political Catholics on in this, you will see even fewer pews filled by the next generation.
TB
Cerberus
Looks like Pius is headin’ on down the road to becoming as polarizing a figure as W.
Look forward to much loud wailing and moaning of Moonbats over how the church is ‘undemocratic’ or not ‘progressive’ enough.
Hey, last time that happened, I thought it was called the Reformation. Don’t like the Catholic Church? become a protestant little Moonbat. Better yet, marry your dog or your cat!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The Pope upset Paul Martin? I sure hope so.
No Communion and no Catholic funeral for you, Mr. Martin – unless and until you actually become what you say you are, a faithful Catholic. That would be beautiful.
The Roman Catholic concern is the homosexuality of the marriage, which last time I checked was in the Bible.
I’m an old hockey coach. When my kids were playing, the ref didn’t make exceptions for my kids because of who they were. My kids played by the rules or got tossed like anybody else’s kid.
Same thing with churches, folks. They all have rules and you play by them or get tossed. If Paul Martin doesn’t want to play by RC rules, let him get tossed along with his priest(who in this case could be compared to a biased ref).
Being a politican is a job, no more, no less.A hockey”enforcer” has a job,too, and the ref still applies the rules to him as well as anyone else. In this case, the Pope not only maka the rules, he da ref. Bye-bye,Paulie. Won’t be seeing you in Heaven.
Kelly, I think you are incorrect and that is part of my point. If the issue was homosexuality, then the RCC would be denying communion to a whole lot more people – those who supported the decriminalizing of homosexuality, those who supported (by voting or going to court) additional benefits homosexuals were previously denied, Catholics who processed adoption applications by gay couples, etc. etc. No, this issue is the re-definition of marriage when marriage is not even a core belief if you look at the Bible.
TB
Cerberus
http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/123966.php
“I think that we must look at the situation and say: ‘Are we respecting a person’s conscience?’ ” asked Walsh.”
This most interesting question was asked by the Prime Minister’s own priest.
Where was he when Martin demanded that the entire cabinet vote with the government on SSM?
I forgot to mention this before…
Last Christmas I went to Mass with the kids. The priest was outstanding in his duties to God and the conregation. After all the Christmasy stuff was done and before he offered communion, he said,” I cannot offer communion to those of you who are not in a state of Grace. I can only bless you”.
If that’s the way it is, that’s the way it should be for Paul Martin,too!
And then there is the old saw that “Conservatives are scary because they want to force their religious views on Canadians politically”
And the libs just love to jump all over that. What they do not tell you , those who are Catholics, is that they are EXPECTED by their church to adhere to Catholic doctrine over and above everything and everyone else. They don’t make a big noise about it, but that is what they are told and what they are expected to do.
It was a HUGE issue in the 1960 US presidential election and Kennedy was nearly defeated because of it ( some say he was defeated if Nixon had not spared the nation a recount ala Florida 2000)
TB;
“…when marriage is not even a core belief if you look at the Bible.”
Marriage Is Sacred and Binding
31 “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’
32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
I must be reading things into the bible…………unless ‘your’ version of the bible was written by Dan Brown?
I dont think benedict will care….nor do i think most catholics will care.
How many catholics voted for a candidate because they were Catholic?
In Quebec, very very few.
The conservatives would be wise to let benedict be bendict and let Martin fight with the Church. Not their fight stay away from it, because they may suffer from some policy disagreement in the future.
But I agree that asking to accept communion from an organization that says you need to follow certain rules to receives it is hypocritical when you flout the rules…whether you agree or not..
Unless of course it is is considered a Charter right to be Catholic.
It is indeed a Charter right to be Catholic. Don’t need some Liberal judge to tell me that. All I need to do is read my own, framed copy, a vintage 1982 gov’t-issued one. Religion is a right under the Charter. Catholicism is a religion, therefore it’s a right. Amen.
Sentinel, Ah, it may not mean much, but I think it’s “freedom of religion” in the Charter. That means choices. So, that means politicans can exercise their Charter rights by choosing a religion that reflects their political beliefs. Sorta like the tail waggin the dog. Not sure if that’ll get them into Heaven, though.
What am I doing? Using “politicans” and “Heaven” in the same sentence….Forgive me, Father McAllister!
No problemo- a small ‘donation’ of the taxpayers money, ( say- 1.25 million bucks), and another ‘donation’ of a half-million or so, (from the Public Works Department), discreetly shovelled at the Vatican through our Embassy To The Holy See,( yearly operating costs- one million bucks), and ‘good Catholic’ PMPM could have public sex with animals, for all his popeness would give a hoot. (And yes- the separation of church and state is a wonnerfull thing!)
“No, this issue is the re-definition of marriage when marriage is not even a core belief if you look at the Bible.”
Uh, what Bible are YOU readin’, dude? Even an apostate like me knows that the Bibles stresses the importance of marriage over and over:
“For fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” – 1Cor.7:2
“And that a man will leave his father and mother, and be forever united to his wife. The two shall become one – no longer two, but one in matrimony! And no man may divorce what God has joined together.” – Matt.19:5-6
“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” – Heb.13:4
Sean,
Not to question your knowledge of the Bible, dude, but the Bible sure has changed since I was a kid. For example, Grandma would keep us in line by threat of Hell’s fire. Too bad she died before the Anglican Church decreed there is no fire in Hell.( Too bad she died, period)
Maybe she’s up in Heaven, looking down and going,
“Gotcha “.
From comments at Angry.
My deepest desire is to see the Catholic Church refuse to conduct Chretien’s funeral.
Posted by imnotparanoid at October 3, 2005 01:49 PM
maz2 you are a treacherous loser.
I don’t hear the CPC saying they will enact Catholic doctrine as law in Canada. IS that what theyare going to do? This whole debate is so phony. I think it is despicable the way the CPC manipulates the Church.
The Catholic church would never refuse to conduct Chretien’s funeral.
Look at all the pomp and ceremony they can muster when one of the “made men” of various “families” bite it. Chretien’s will be as flambouant and ceremonial as they can muster, if not more so.
The Catholic church would never refuse to conduct Chretien’s funeral.
Look at all the pomp and ceremony they can muster when one of the “made men” of various “families” bite it. Chretien’s will be as flambouant and ceremonial as they can muster, if not more so.
Why don’t the politicians vote with their feet and go to a church that they agree with? Everyone would be happier.
This is me beating a dead horse.
This could all have been avoided if marriage would have been taken *out* of government control. Really, if you believe in the separation of church and state, this is just an extension of that.
Have a government “cohabitation registry” or whatever for tax and legal purposes. Then let the churches perform what they consider marriage *sacraments* based on their unique definitions. No more marriage commissioners. At least none paid for by tax $$.
This was a missed opportunity for Harper. He could have put on a consistent message of less government, and protected the religions. He could have dared Martin to take the separation of church and state one step further. The state has no place in the churches/synagoges/mosques of the nation. Martin has been milking this in order to make Harper look bad. Harper could have thrown it back in his face.
It’s not too late. Lets flesh out a real policy before the next election.
Norman: you are bang on. In the long history and many forms of marriage since the dawn of civilization, it is only very recently that marriage was taken on by the state (ironically, in an effort to separate church and state when the church was pretty much the state). Civil unions between homosexuals has been legal for a while now and the state should have moved back to civil unions for everyone.
TB
Cerberus
Actually, marriage is a core belief. It is addressed in the Hebrew creation account and was a key topic addressed by Jesus and Paul. In fact, on the topic of marriage, Jesus was less inclusive and tolerant than his more “fundamentalist” critics.
For Christians through the centuries, the theology of marriage has always been front and centre.
As for the Catholic Church, marriage is nothing less than a holy sacrament, as is baptism and the eucharist.
Old Squid: Bible interpretations can get pretty weird depending on the church you belong to (speaking as an ex-Mormon).
Norman L: You’ve nailed it on the head.
“a” wrote:
“I don’t hear the CPC saying they will enact Catholic doctrine as law in Canada. IS that what theyare going to do? This whole debate is so phony. I think it is despicable the way the CPC manipulates the Church.”
This proves that “a” is prejudiced and bigoted as can be. Left-wing extremism unplugged!
Separation of church and state, and freedom of conscience prevents the state from defining religious doctrine.
Religious institutions are obligated, if their goal is the spiritual betterment of mankind, to guide us on the moral questions. The state is obligated to let folks determine their own spiritual path, its up to the churches to provide guidance.
The charter right to freedom of conscience makes any law created by the state that mandates belief unconstitutional.
Is “a” a treacherous socialist loser? Or, perhaps using sarcasm? Probably. Is Chretien the treacherous socialist loser?
BTW, the quote (Copy/Paste) which aroused/invited your comment was by commenter “imnotparanoid” at blog:
http://angrygwn.mu.nu/
Also, for more on treacherous socialist losers, go to blog:
http://blackrod.blogspot.com/
“Prime Minister Paul Martin said Friday he separates his privately held Roman Catholic beliefs from his duties as a politician, despite the apparent threat he could lose access to the sacrament of communion for his government’s stand on same-sex marriage.
John Gotti said Friday that he separates his privately held Roman Catholic beliefs from his duties as leader of a nationwide business enterprise………”my faith is a private issue”, he said.
Go to Church Sunday…….kill Monday………
Same mentality……different circumstances……..” >>> more
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496276/posts
“Go to Church Sunday…….kill Monday………”
‘kin-eh Maz! If that doens’t sum up the state of Canada and her benevolent dictator, nothing does!
Separation of Church and state? It’s about time the Church did it.
I’ve done my own analysis on the very real political consequences of such a Vatican move here:
http://uccatholic.blogspot.com/2005/10/paul-martin-and-vatican-effect.html
As I said, who would have ever thought Paul Martin would be defined as a man of principle by the Vatican?
You may find it interesting to visit some relevant pages dedicated to promotions black dealer jack promotions black dealer jack http://www.vquality.com/blackjack.html http://www.vquality.com/blackjack.html .