posted
There are some in the Catholic church, including the Arch Bishop in St. Louis, who wish to refuse communion to people who are homosexual. There are ministers who wish to throw any unrepentant homosexual out of their church. They claim that since these people are unrepentent of their sins--adultery, they are unworthy.
How then do they allow any politician to have communion, or worship in their church. After all lieing is a sin too. Its listed right up their in the top ten, along with Adultery.
Oh, and you can say that not all politicians lie, but having other people lie for you, profiting from an untruth, willing and allowing it to spread, and even measuring your words so that the lie is assumed, are all as much a lie as two men in a commited monogomous relationship in love with each other, is adultery.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not lying is a "top ten" sin (i.e. in the Ten Commandments), is debatable. At least, many people (including myself) do not think that "bearing false witness" = lying.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, do you consider a politician who lies about his agenda, or about the reasons for wanting certain legislation passed, and does so in a public forum "bearing false witness"?
If a mayor gets on the TV and says to his people, "I believe this new budget will make our streets more secure" when he knows it cripples the police department is he bearing false witness?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe a priest is really in a position to refuse the Eucharist to anyone unless that person has been formally excommunicated, and that situation is incredibly rare.
I think a priest can, in the privacy of the confessional, try to convince someone he considers "unrepentant" to not participate in the sacrament, but I think that's all he can do.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with fishtail to some degree. I'd think it would be more a case of individual accountability if an unrepentant person took the euchrist.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes lying is essential. It can't be helped. Though I will admit, I'm getting tired of the lying politicians in the world.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
People wearing rainbow sashes are currently being refused Eucharist in my city, by order of the archbishop. On the grounds that communion is not the place for political protest. Which I actually agree with, honestly. But I also don't think it's the priest's place to deny communion. But it very definitely is happening. I believe it made the national news, even.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't mean to take over the thread or anything, but since it did mention homosexuality, can i ask..
someone told me something today about public schools banning works by gay authors? (I'm probably behind on this story)
true? not true?
did we already have a thread about it? what are everyone's thoughts about it?
(Once again, I don't mean to take over. This just kind of bothered me.)
edit:
quote:But I also don't think it's the priest's place to deny communion.
Me either. It's a person's decision. If it's wrong, God will deal with them later over it, I think. But men have no right to judge. That's written all over the bible.
Posts: 925 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. I know clergy who serve communion wearing rainbow stoles. The rainbow is a biblical symbol, after all. And while I agree that communion should not be an occaision for protest, I think denying based on what someone is wearing sets a really stupid precedent.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could someone please provide links to some of these stories. The exact wording of the ruling is very important in evaluating such decisions. For example, I'd be really surprised if the St. Louis ruling actually denied communion to "homosexuals" in general.
As far as the Catholic Church goes, Bishops have the authority to deny the Sacrament to particular people or classes of people under Canon Law. I'm not sure what the individual authority of priests is in this regard, but they are definitely bound by rulings of their Bishops.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Obviously, the churches that practice this sort of thing have a hierarchy of wickedness. Your argument would be stronger if you could show, using the church's own principles, how denying/excommunicating people for lying is more beneficial than doing the same to homosexuals.
quote: quote:But I also don't think it's the priest's place to deny communion.
Me either. It's a person's decision. If it's wrong, God will deal with them later over it, I think. But men have no right to judge. That's written all over the bible.
Depending on the religion, it is a 'priest's place' to deny communion.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if a politician upheld a public policy that lying was perfectly acceptable...and let people know that that was his policy, then I think he would be out of line with the church and could have communion withheld. There is a difference from sinning, and repenting and publicly supporting a sit. If someone were to get an abortion, and then repent, they would almost definitely not be denied communion. This is different from giving speeches supporting legalized abortion. The big difference being repentance. You are not supposed to take communion if you are sinning and not repenting from that sin.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok I have to say i'm a little offended by this post. I have worked for several politicians now, and they are not dishonest lying people. This thread- at least at the top, is fairly offensive. People look at things from different view points. I don't think that can be called lying, and I definately don't think, for having a differing opinion someone should be denied holy communion, Jesus wasn't about what divides us, he was about what brings us together- Love for the common man and love for eachother. The church has long forgotten that.
Posts: 84 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Me either. It's a person's decision. If it's wrong, God will deal with them later over it, I think. But men have no right to judge. That's written all over the bible.
Well, actually, I don't think the ritual of confession is Biblically based; Dag will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong. You are no doubt thinking of "Judge not, lest ye be judged", which certainly could be applied, but it's not a slam-dunk. There's a lot of theological analysis that agrees with you, but I rather doubt any of it is in the Bible.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scriptural references that the Catholic Church uses to support its teachings on the Sacrament of Pennance:
quote:It is noteworthy that the fundamental objection so often urged against the Sacrament of Penance was first thought of by the Scribes when Christ said to the sick man of the palsy: "Thy sins are forgiven thee." "And there were some of the scribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins but God only?" But Jesus seeing their thoughts, said to them: "Which is easier to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, take up thy bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house" (Mark, ii, 5-11; Matt., ix, 2-7). Christ wrought a miracle to show that He had power to forgive sins and that this power could be exerted not only in heaven but also on earth. This power, moreover, He transmitted to Peter and the other Apostles. To Peter He says: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt., xvi, 19). Later He says to all the Apostles: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt., xviii, 18).
posted
Well, it seems to me that that's a lot of interpretation to get to confession, penance, and absolution, but whatever floats your boat. It makes as much sense as anything else in that religion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Catholic Church does not believe that the Bible contains all valid teachings. Tradition passed down from early Church members in non-scriptural texts is also relevant.
Just as the Bible does not contain the words to the wedding ceremony, the Bible does not outright describe confession. But it does document the foundational authority underlying confession.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
From that article, it sounds like the Church interpreted the sashes as part of an organized protest against Church teaching, which is a storng indication that they were not in full conformity with the teachings of the Church.
From that perspective, it's a justifiable exercise of authority. I'm not sure of the validity of the conclusion that it's a protest, though. although the timing of it lends some credence to that view. It depends on the publicity surrounding the sashes - were they just for solidarity with particularly troubled people, or were they advocating change to Church teaching?
I'd still like to see an article on the incident Dan mentioned.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
