No more crackers and sacramental drink for Biden.

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not very familiar with nuances of Catholic teachings, but decisions like denying someone Communion are often up to higher-ups in the Church, aren't they? The average member doesn't have the authority to determine who gets to attend Communion inside their church.

And I'm only speaking for myself. My posts contain no "juvenile insults" or demonization of the Church as a whole. If you believe otherwise, feel free to point out where I said anything in this thread that qualifies as such.

Yes, there are guidelines for this sort of thing. The Orthodox have similar views, from what I gather. Since the Eucharist is viewed as the true Body and Blood of Christ, it is considered sacrilege among Catholics and the Orthodox for a person in a state of serious sin to receive communion. (The Anglicans also recognize the Real Presence but tend to practice open communion, allowing anyone to take it, whereas the Catholic and Orthodox hold you must be baptized/confirmed and in a state of grace). But it is not permitted to simply refuse to give the Sacraments to someone. There are guidelines for this.

"Canon 915, one of the canons in the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, forbids the administration of Holy Communion to those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared or who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin:

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

The corresponding canon in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which binds members of the Eastern Catholic Churches, reads, "The publicly unworthy are to be kept from the reception of the Divine Eucharist"."
Canon 915 - Wikipedia

 

[SomeRandom]

We all do and we're all hypocrites, so I guess none of us should take any moral stances?

To err is human, to forgive divine.

I mean, sure. Take moral stances. But the Church is in dire need of a better PR manager right now. That’s not the fault of Catholics or the teachings of Catholicism. Just that maybe they might look better if they forgive a bit more publicly. Or at least less open to umm “easy criticism.”
I think the same about my own mother’s Religious organisation if it makes you feel any better.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What a crude, juvenile title.

It's pretty much what it actually is.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

That depends. Do you prop yourself up as the sole arbiter of morality for the human world, and the most direct communion between man and diety, and the gatekeeper of the highest moral authority in the Universe?

If not, then to make the comparison between inidividual people and the Catholic church is extremely silly.

the catholic church, just like most all Christian churches see themselves as the sole arbiter of morality

are not these churches just a collection of individuals who, generally see themselves the same way?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Yes, there are guidelines for this sort of thing. The Orthodox have similar views, from what I gather. Since the Eucharist is viewed as the true Body and Blood of Christ, it is considered sacrilege among Catholics and the Orthodox for a person in a state of serious sin to receive communion. (The Anglicans also recognize the Real Presence but tend to practice open communion, allowing anyone to take it, whereas the Catholic and Orthodox hold you must be baptized/confirmed and in a state of grace). But it is not permitted to simply refuse to give the Sacraments to someone. There are guidelines for this.

"Canon 915, one of the canons in the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, forbids the administration of Holy Communion to those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared or who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin:

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

The corresponding canon in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which binds members of the Eastern Catholic Churches, reads, "The publicly unworthy are to be kept from the reception of the Divine Eucharist"."
Canon 915 - Wikipedia

are not all of the doctrines you speak of here, 100% doctrines of men?

what did Jesus have to say about such doctrines

 

[ImmortalFlame]

the catholic church, just like most all Christian churches see themselves as the sole arbiter of morality

are not these churches just a collection of individuals who, generally see themselves the same way?

Again, you cannot excuse the institutional corruption of a powerful, trusted organization just because people are generally flawed. There is a difference between a person doing something wrong, and an organization that is specifically designed around the idea of being the moral epicentre of the world using that position as an excuse to cover up and perpetuate wrongdoing. We're not just talking about flaws. We are talking about concerted efforts by large numbers of very powerful people to abuse their positions and mitigate or avoid accountability and protect abusers.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Catholic Church does huge amounts of good in the world. When you're down and out, churches are one of the few places you can turn to for help.

If you found out, say, a major corporation had been involved in numerous conspiracies to protect child abusers, silence witnesses, sell the children of vulnerable unwed mothers and perpetuate misinformation on sexual health practices in order to make money out of AIDs-striken third-world countries, do you think it would be reasonable for me to defend that corporation by saying "Yeah, well... they also give a lot of money to charity!"

Please stop with these lame defences of the Catholic church. If the church really IS a place people can find comfort, that should make you all the more enraged about the countless abuses it has committed (and continues to commit). The fact that the church is SUPPOSED to do good should mean that you hold it to a HIGHER standard, not a lower one.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Again, you cannot excuse the institutional corruption of a powerful, trusted organization just because people are generally flawed. There is a difference between a person doing something wrong, and an organization that is specifically designed around the idea of being the moral epicentre of the world using that position as an excuse to cover up and perpetuate wrongdoing. We're not just talking about flaws. We are talking about concerted efforts by large numbers of very powerful people to abuse their positions and mitigate or avoid accountability and protect abusers.

if the people are flawed, how can the organization be otherwise?

does just saying that an organization is a moral epicenter, automatically make it so?

the organization is organized by people.

will the organization be much worse, as a whole, than some of the people in it?

can a single individual who TRULY is good to the best of their ability be far better than any church?
analogy: you have a bushel of apples. one is good, 3 are rotten, all the rest are mediocre. as an average, the bushel is less than mediocre. if the good one is removed, it is far better than the bushel, and the bushel is still less than mediocre.

possibly we’re both thinking the same thing and saying it in different ways

 

[ImmortalFlame]

if the people are flawed, how can the organization be otherwise?

Because organizations should be set up to minimize flaws, not to perpetuate and cover them up.

A person who steals a watch because they want to sell it for money is flawed.

An organization that arranges hundreds of thefts, kills witnesses, silences jurors and bribes police and politicians is actively corrupt.

One causes harm simply out of weakness for personal gain. The other not only causes harm, but actively seeks to further perpetuate harm and protect the perpetrators of it.

does just saying that an organization is a moral epicenter, automatically make it so?

No. But millions upon millions of people trust that it is.

the organization is organized by people.

will the organization be much worse, as a whole, than some of the people in it?

That depends. How many organizations do you know saught not only to hide peadophiles within it, but actively saught to protect them and silence their victims?

can a single individual who TRULY is good to the best of their ability be far better than any church?
analogy: you have a bushel of apples. one is good, 3 are rotten, all the rest are mediocre. as an average, the bushel is less than mediocre. if the good one is removed, it is far better than the bushel, and the bushel is still less than mediocre.

possibly we’re both thinking the same thing and saying it in different ways

Better analogy:

You are an apple farmer in a community in which apple pies are the main delicacy and a huge source of income. You examine your bushells and find that, of the one hundred apples you have, only 70 are good. Rather than admit this to the community and risk a slightly less impressive harvest, you tell them all your apples are good. They then take all the apples and make pies out of them. Then some people get sick because they ate your bad apples. You tell these people that it couldn't possibily be due to your apples, because your apples are magic and are never bad. Someone's child dies after eating a pie made from your apples. You warn their parent that they should never tell anyone about this otherwise they might never get your apples again. When health inspectors visit, you pay them to tell everyone all of your apples are safe. You remove all evidence of ever having any bad apples and continue to draw funds from the community by selling them bad apples every season.

Does that sound like the natural result of "less than perfect farming"? Or does it sound like you are actively perpetuating harm for your own ends and setting up a system to remove any accountability on your part?

 

[Friend of Mara]

Yay, more Catholic bashing. Insulting Communion itself, as well. RF is so friendly.

The Catholic Church has moral teachings and if you're opposing them publicly, they can withhold Sacraments from you. If you're not Catholic, it doesn't concern you. This has zero to do with any church state thing. Are you joking?

The Catholic Church has a rich and old history that continues to the modern day and is blemished with so many bashable moments. The unfortunate problem is many of those blemishes haven't been apologized for or corrected. I try not to slam someone for being Catholic but the institution is fair game.

 

[pearl]

The Holy Church has spokwn! "Hic"

Its not the 'Church' that has spoken, its the conservative United States Bishops. But it should come as no surprise.
USCCB President's Statement on the Inauguration of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., as 46th President of the United States of America
USCCB President's Statement on the Inauguration of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., as 46th President of the United States of America | USCCB

 

[metis]

U.S. bishops approve "teaching document" that may rebuke Biden and other Catholic politicians who support abortion rights - CBS News

As a pro-life Catholic, this proposed action by these bishops is disgusting, and in more ways than one.

Some here have correctly cited what is a HUGE element of hypocrisy whereas all too many of the bishops turned a blind eye when it came to the "pedophile priests", but it's more than just that.

All too many in the "religious right", which includes a great many Catholics and especially many elderly Catholic bishops, seemingly only seem to see "pro-life" in terms of abortion. The reality is that there are many issues dealing with being "pro-life", and the Church has taught as such, especially with being opposed to capital punishment [per the Catechism] and accepting the reality of climate change [per Pope Francis's encyclical] for starters. So, why aren't these bishops also saying that if a congregant doesn't accept those teachings that they should be denied the Eucharist?

On top of that, as someone here correctly stated, PF said they should not deny the Eucharist, including politicians. After all, do we really need more division in the country and even in the Church itself? Maybe the bishops who are ignoring the Pope believe that the Church should get a lot smaller by causing even more divisions amongst us?

I have one word for what they appear to be doing: "disgusting".

 

[metis]

the catholic church, just like most all Christian churches see themselves as the sole arbiter of morality

That is not true.

 

[metis]

Its not the 'Church' that has spoken, its the conservative United States Bishops. But it should come as no surprise.
USCCB President's Statement on the Inauguration of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., as 46th President of the United States of America
USCCB President's Statement on the Inauguration of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., as 46th President of the United States of America | USCCB

Frankly, these bishops appear to more aligned with secular right-wing politics than with the Vatican and Catholic social teachings.

 

[SomeRandom]

As a pro-life Catholic, this proposed action by these bishops is disgusting, and in more ways than one.

Some here have correctly cited what is a HUGE element of hypocrisy whereas all too many of the bishops turned a blind eye when it came to the "pedophile priests", but it's more than just that.

All too many in the "religious right", which includes a great many Catholics and especially many elderly Catholic bishops, seemingly only seem to see "pro-life" in terms of abortion. The reality is that there are many issues dealing with being "pro-life", and the Church has taught as such, especially with being opposed to capital punishment [per the Catechism] and accepting the reality of climate change [per Pope Francis's encyclical] for starters. So, why aren't these bishops also saying that if a congregant doesn't accept those teachings that they should be denied the Eucharist?

On top of that, as someone here correctly stated, PF said they should not deny the Eucharist, including politicians. After all, do we really need more division in the country and even in the Church itself? Maybe the bishops who are ignoring the Pope believe that the Church should get a lot smaller by causing even more divisions amongst us?

I have one word for what they appear to be doing: "disgusting".

Good to see some Catholics with a backbone. I commend you on your conviction.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Catholic Church has a rich and old history that continues to the modern day and is blemished with so many bashable moments. The unfortunate problem is many of those blemishes haven't been apologized for or corrected. I try not to slam someone for being Catholic but the institution is fair game.

Being catholic is inseparable from what they believe as the body of christ. If you insult the church, you're insulting the institution of christ to which all catholics are apart, not a political organization.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Being catholic is inseparable from what they believe as the body of christ. If you insult the church, you're insulting the institution of christ to which all catholics are apart, not a political organization.

Then that's on them. Don't affiliate and make an identity out of an objectively flawed institution. I don't believe it to be the institution of christ. I think people can be more than what god they believe in.

If not then I'd like to hear a Catholic's response to the problems with the church. They almost unanimously say "humans are flawed but god is perfect" and the catholic church is an organization made up of humans. So is it the perfect representation of god or is it a flawed and criticizable organization? It can't be both.

 

[pearl]

Frankly, these bishops appear to more aligned with secular right-wing politics than with the Vatican and Catholic social teachings.

The Church has always prioritized the right to life. And any politician who does not agree, remember Kerry, faces the same fate, to be denied Eucharist. There are now several Catholics on the Supreme Court, if by any outside chance they fail to criminalize abortion, will the Church withhold Eucharist from them?

I remember years ago there was talk of the 'morning after' pill, which is not an abortive since;
Morning-after pills can help prevent pregnancy if you've had unprotected sex — either because you didn't use birth control, you missed a birth control pill, you were sexually assaulted or your method of birth control failed.

Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted. They work primarily by delaying or preventing ovulation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Then that's on them. Don't affiliate and make an identity out of an objectively flawed institution. I don't believe it to be the institution of christ. I think people can be more than what god they believe in.

If not then I'd like to hear a Catholic's response to the problems with the church. They almost unanimously say "humans are flawed but god is perfect" and the catholic church is an organization made up of humans. So is it the perfect representation of god or is it a flawed and criticizable organization? It can't be both.

Youre belittling an organization. To them you're belittling Christ.

The Catholics I spoke with say they are sad about the church people-the guilty priests-but they put more emphasis in Christ not hating the church as if every single person has some vendetta.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Youre belittling an organization. To them you're belittling Christ.
.

Then the organization is belittling christ. Or maybe I'm just insensitive.