Catholic Synod seeks to bar pols who stray from Church doctrine

[TayTay]

New church rules would label voting for pols who disagree with the Church, 'a sin for the faithful.' (Bite me, you fascist bastards.)

http://www.heraldonline.com/24hour/world/story/2774200p-11387229c.html

"This issue has caused some divisions among the people in the church" during the 2004 presidential election, the briefer quoted Levada as saying. During the campaign, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke said he would deny Communion to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Catholic who supports abortion rights.

The working document for the synod said it was a sin for the faithful to support Catholic politicians who themselves back abortion and other policies contrary to church teaching.

"Some receive Communion while denying the teachings of the church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal," the document said.

"Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace."

Apparently, raping young boys and moving priests around to cover the crime is hunky dorey. However, votes of conscience that do not affect personal behavior is a big no-no. What a bunch of hypocrites.

All I can say is I'm glad I'm not with this fascist bunch of bastards anymore. I'm in permanent recovery.

[whometense]

1. I'd sort of wanted to talk about this,

but now it's totally Kerry-appropriate.

Did you see this in Sunday's paper?

Reality sets in -- Rome rules Boston
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | October 2, 2005

BOSTON AREA Catholics are starting to wake up from a pleasant if naive dream that a humble monk will lead them out of the dark years of the clergy sexual abuse scandal to the promised land.

Under Archbishop Sean O'Malley, everything is different and everything is exactly the same. In some quarters, the disappointment is so keen, it raises questions: Who, really, is in charge? Is Cardinal Bernard F. Law, the man who aided and covered up the scandal, still calling the shots from Rome?

Two years ago, O'Malley was embraced as the new leader of the Boston archdiocese. The friar known for his brown robe, sandals, and prayerful humility would supposedly end the arrogant -- and tragic for its victims -- reign of his predecessor. ''The leadership promised hasn't been delivered . . . He is not running the show," Jack Connors Jr., a prominent member of Boston's Irish Catholic establishment, now says of O'Malley.

The mess, fiscal and psychological, that Law left behind did not make it easy for his successor. Local Catholics rebelled at every turn against parish and school closings he insisted were necessary in the aftermath of the scandal. The ouster of the Rev. Walter Cuenin as pastor of Our Lady, Help of Christians parish in Newton, is the latest controversy to rock the archdiocese and increase the bitterness toward O'Malley.

Cuenin's use of a parish-funded, parish-approved lease car was supposedly the basis for what was billed as O'Malley's decision to yank him for ''financial improprieties." Speculation as to the real motivation includes Cuenin's support for gays and his past criticism of Law. He was one of 58 priests in the Boston area who urged Law to resign. Cuenin's replacement is the Rev. Christopher Coyne, Law's chief spokesman during the abuse scandal. . .

. . . The Boston archdiocese is a microcosm of the bigger struggle within the Catholic Church. But just like liberal Democrats, liberal Catholics have little choice; in fact they have less. George W. Bush is president until the next election; Benedict XVI is pope for life. Disaffected Catholics can close their wallets and stay away from church, but if they expect to be missed, they are mistaken. To the victor, go the spoils, in politics and religion.

Whether willing or unwilling, O'Malley is a pawn in a gigantic ideological struggle.

Sadly for Boston, it leaves a disgraced cardinal in position to carry out a dual agenda: conservatism and revenge. That means the nightmare continues for Law's victims and those brave souls who stood up to him.

I'm not even a Catholic, and I find this frightening. Whatever happened to the teachings of Christ?

[TayTay]

2. This is fascist, ther eis no other word for it.

They are trying to control elecitons in the United STates. Their goal is to reign in the liberal Catholic movement and make it kow-tow to Rome and to disgraced Cardinal Law. I am so mad about this I can barely speak.

The other interesting article this week talked about the impending witch-hunt within the church to find gays. This is bound to backfire on the church as many people know that there are many gay clergy, some of who occupy very high office. (Some say that now, it is the very highest office.) I see no reaason not to out some of these people if they insist on fascist actions like this.

[whometense]

3. As someone

who spends a fair amount of time among priests, I'm wondering who they think will lead their congregations if they evict all gay clergy. Seriously. And of course the whole gay=pedophile question, well, 'nuff said. These people are deranged. Deluded? Maybe they don't care that they are chasing people away. My husband thinks they will be just as happy if the end result is to rid the church of all liberal Catholics.

Needless to say, this is a HUGE honking issue around here. I truly have no idea, but wonder, what proportion of Boston-area Catholics are liberal - i.e. practice birth control, etc. It really feels like a reenactment of the f***ing Spanish Inquisition, only practiced against THEIR OWN PEOPLE. I don't get it.

Jack Connors, the guy quoted in Vennochi's column, is someone with an enormously high and respected profile in the Boston Catholic community. He's a money mover as well. If he's hacked off, they are truly in deep shit.

[TayTay]

4. It is a power play

The American church and the American Catholics have been getting very independent and thinking a lot for themselves lately. This makes the present element in the Church bery antsy. The Catholic Church is very hierarchical and imposes rules and law from above. They get pissed when the lowly laity wants any rights at all or any say in how the Church functions. This war actually goes back quite a ways in Us history, it's just that this latest overt crap about calling voting for the candidte of your choice a mortal sin is beyond the pale.

Boston was deeply shaken by the scandal of the past few years. This will not sit well on top of that. This may, finally, break the power of the Church over so much of MA. (I hope so. I am serious in saying I find this to be fascism. This is despicable behavior and is a break from prior rulings. They can all bite me. I will never set foot in a Church again, except for funerals and weddings and no money to them ever.)

[whometense]

5. I agree that it's fascism.

This is not sitting well with the Jesuits either, I assure you. I'm sure all that "Voice of the Faithful" action over the past few years gave Rome serious indigestion. Good. They deserved it and more.

I assume that Rome believes that if they crack the whip hard enough the flock will fall back into line. I'm not so sure their power isn't gone forever. It's like with Bush - once your trust has been betrayed how do you go back and trust again? It's hard to see that happening, especially with a crowd as ornery and independent-minded as Boston Catholics. The church has to be willing to kiss all these people goodbye, though, if they're drawing that hard a line. I really wonder how it will play out. These people are devout - like Kerry - and it will be truly heartbreaking for them all around.

That said, if they take a few more actions like they did against Cuenin, we may be seeing a new religious sect forming in the near future.

[TayTay]

6. You tell me, this are exact words from the Bible:

Which Party honors them? Does the Church have the right to elevate their personal and petty opinions above the command of the founder of the Church:

"Beware of the teachers of the law . . . They devour your widows' houses . . . Such men will be punished severely." Luke 20:46-47

"Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need." 1 Timothy 5:3

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27

"Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, 'Here's a good seat for you,' but say to the poor man, 'You stand there' or 'Sit on the floor by my feet,' have you not discriminated among yourselves and becomes judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom He promised those who love Him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?" James 2:2-6

"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18

And from the Old Testament (in Catholic referal) Why was Sodom destroyed anyway:

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." Ezekiel 16:49

And this:

"The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying them justice." Ezekiel 22:29

Yeah, well, I know who has worked for this and who has not. And the rich bastards in the Neuman Society who are attempting to silence liberal clergy at BC and such are not observing these commands. And these are not suggestions, btw, they are commands of the church. Violating them is a sin. I would be committing a sin to vote for those who disregard the poor.

[whometense]

7. Sounds to me

like there is one huge confrontation coming. I don't see how they finesse this. Apocalypse now?

[TayTay]

8. Well, I think the Church's influence will wane.

They are choosing sides in a democracy. This is beyond awful. I think a lot of liberal Catholics might just break off and tell them to "screw off, you don't speak for me and you don't speak for Christ."

[whometense]

9. It will be very

interesting to see what Kerry will do. He and Jack Connors are in the same category, I think - Boston's power Catholics. It's hard to see them accepting the latest power play. The sexual abuse scandals were so horribly damaging to the church's credibility. But again, just like Bush, they either don't seem to realize this, or they just don't care.

And the Jesuits? I don't know. They have a history of intellectual orneriness, but how far they'd be willing to go politically...? They're by and large old men, and probably not spoiling for a fight, either.

[beachmom]

10. Since my husband is German I feel I can say this

Ratzi (what I call Benedict) is from Bavaria (the most right wing conservative part of Germany and for which the Nazi party sprung out of), and as we learned he was both in the Hitler Youth and in the Wehrmacht. He didn't rebel. No, he wasn't a Nazi nor did he commit crimes, but unlike Pope John Paul, he never actively rebelled against them. I just don't find him having a moral compass. Only to judge others. He is blatantly anti-homosexual and he never was a real priest with a parish, but more of a theologian. He doesn't have a clue about the real world, what families go through, etc. Unfortunately, the Vatican holds a great deal of power in the world, and I have to be frank that I think his power is wielded for evil discrimination against gays and women. Gays, of course, are "untermenschen" (subhuman), and even if they remain celibate will not be allowed to become priests (this is per andrewsullivan.com who has in gut wrenching detail described the horrible things happening at the Vatican now). Women are fine, as long as they stay in their place -- barefoot and pregnant, and obedient, of course. This is all very unfortunate, as Germany in general is a very liberal society in regards to women and gays (civil unions are legal there, for example), and this guy is very subtly ruining Germany's very carefully repaired reputation IMHO.

Yes, I'm glad I am no longer a Catholic, but it breaks my heart that a Church that has created so many social justice liberals is now being stripped of its morality, in the name of a false judgmental morality.