• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Voting for Kerry is now considered a sin.

Trinity

Member
God loves all of us and would not want to keep Himself from anyone. A sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace, given to us by Christ, so we can stay close to Him. Now, if we are helping someone kill children, in any manner, we are keeping OURSELVES from Christ. Matthew 18:6 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." I am not advocating throwing any politicians into the sea, rather if we can help to act on his beliefs that he claims to hold, would we not be doing him a service.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Hello all,

pah: I wish I could answer your question about the tax-exempt status, but I am not a lawyer... I would say that the Church is walking a very fine line.
I also believe the Church has an obligation to its members to teach the faith and that includes morality..... in this case, the moral obligation in a Presidential vote. Any moral teaching by the Church on something that could be considered a secular law (abortion, death penalty) would then be a "intrusion" into the secular world.... no different than a vote. ALL Church teaching on morality would then be a "violation" and cancel out the tax-exempt status. I believe the status should only be removed if the Church gives money to a campaign. We are not forced by the Church to vote for any canditate, the Church is only saying that if we do, we should follow our faith and vote morally.
FYI: the Bishop in Co Springs speaks for his diocese, not the entire Catholic faith. My Bishop has not made any statements like this and prefers to tell us to only "cast a vote that would serve life, serve justice, and serve the Gospel."


Scott
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
chuck010342 said:
I find it interesting that the only catholic reply to this post does not quote Jesus. The ridiculousness of the Catholic Church is show here agian by its sayings about abortion and voting rights in america. Kerry is a hypocrite, Bush is a hypocrite and the catholic church is a hypoctical. we should put them all in one pit and burn them up. Wait a min that is going to happen at the ressurection isn't it :)

***MOD POST***

We want to welcome everyone's opinions and ideas, but let's do it a more respectfully than this, please. Saying we should burn people is out of line. Post your disagreements with other religions, but do so without being offensive. If anyone has any questions or comments about this, please feel free to PM or email me or any of the other mods.

Thank you,
Maize


Now, back to the topic....
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
I think you missed the point, I'll say it again... Making statements like... "we should put them all in one pit and burn them up" is out of line.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
chuck010342 said:
I find it interesting that the only catholic reply to this post does not quote Jesus. The ridiculousness of the Catholic Church is show here agian by its sayings about abortion and voting rights in america. Kerry is a hypocrite, Bush is a hypocrite and the catholic church is a hypoctical. we should put them all in one pit and burn them up. Wait a min that is going to happen at the ressurection isn't it :)

I must have missed this little nugget. My apologies.

Let me get this straight Chuck - are you saying that we should burn Bush, Kerry, and the Catholics because they are hypocritical? I'm sure you are speaking metaphorically and do not really wish to have them burned, so I'll ignore that part of your post.
I am curious as to what it is that you see being hypocritical in their stance. I'm not Catholic, not even Christian - heck, I'm not even a Theist, but I don't seem to be following your line of thought.
Please tell me where you see the hypocrisy in their stances.
Also, if you don't mind my asking, what religion do you follow and what is it's (or your) stance on abortion and how you vote? You seem to be saying that Kerry is hypocritical, and yet the people on the other side of the issue are also hypocritical. If they are both out of line, what do you see as correct?

Thanks,
TVOR
 

Economist

Member
If you wish to see a quote from Jesus, I have one, but I am afraid I can't source it, I only know it by heart. Jesus said "I knew you in the womb." Jesus knew that life started at conception.

As for taxes, the day my government tries to limit my religion's freedom to preach its beliefs is the day I take up arms against that government. Fortunately I don't believe it will ever come to that.

The voting guide for serious Catholics allows voting for the lesser of two evils, but there is no issue that tops abortion. No other issue can be considered tantamount to millions of innocent lives being unlawfully and immorally ended every year.
 

Rex

Founder
The Voice of Reason said:
I must have missed this little nugget. My apologies.

Let me get this straight Chuck - are you saying that we should burn Bush, Kerry, and the Catholics because they are hypocritical? I'm sure you are speaking metaphorically and do not really wish to have them burned, so I'll ignore that part of your post.
I am curious as to what it is that you see being hypocritical in their stance. I'm not Catholic, not even Christian - heck, I'm not even a Theist, but I don't seem to be following your line of thought.
Please tell me where you see the hypocrisy in their stances.
Also, if you don't mind my asking, what religion do you follow and what is it's (or your) stance on abortion and how you vote? You seem to be saying that Kerry is hypocritical, and yet the people on the other side of the issue are also hypocritical. If they are both out of line, what do you see as correct?

Thanks,
TVOR
TVOR we are going to drop what he said. It's been deleted and should be ignored. Noone should defend anything he is saying b/c it's a load of crap that WILL NOT be tolerated on this forum. Th End.
 

Pah

Uber all member
SOGFPP said:
Hello all,

pah: I wish I could answer your question about the tax-exempt status, but I am not a lawyer... I would say that the Church is walking a very fine line.
I also believe the Church has an obligation to its members to teach the faith and that includes morality..... in this case, the moral obligation in a Presidential vote. Any moral teaching by the Church on something that could be considered a secular law (abortion, death penalty) would then be a "intrusion" into the secular world.... no different than a vote. ALL Church teaching on morality would then be a "violation" and cancel out the tax-exempt status. I believe the status should only be removed if the Church gives money to a campaign. We are not forced by the Church to vote for any canditate, the Church is only saying that if we do, we should follow our faith and vote morally.
FYI: the Bishop in Co Springs speaks for his diocese, not the entire Catholic faith. My Bishop has not made any statements like this and prefers to tell us to only "cast a vote that would serve life, serve justice, and serve the Gospel."


Scott

Tell ya the truth, Scott. even though I'm angry, I can not object to the faith being taught. When I was practically "steaming" writing those posts, I had in the back of my mind a thought that I was perhaps attacking people like you and I didn't like that idea at all. I have a dichotomy with the Church and with individuals whose identity is rooted in the faith that Church teaches. I'm not oblivious to how hard the line is drawn by the Church but it somehow adds a bit of respect for the individual.

The Catholic Church is facing it's biggest challange in Europe. Countries, nominally bastions of Catholic faith are turning distinctly secular and this worries the Church. ( ReligiosNewsBolg thread - Vatican Is Alarmed by Political Trend In Europe )

I, however, am firmly rooted in a humanistic, secular society and I see talk of a theocratical nature as a threat to my way of life.

-pah-
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Rex_Admin said:
TVOR we are going to drop what he said. It's been deleted and should be ignored. Noone should defend anything he is saying b/c it's a load of crap that WILL NOT be tolerated on this forum. Th End.
Well, at least that shows me that I was on the right track about what he said. Thanks, Rex.

TVOR
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Economist said:
As for taxes, the day my government tries to limit my religion's freedom to preach its beliefs is the day I take up arms against that government. Fortunately I don't believe it will ever come to that.
Are you saying that the government has no right to revoke the tax exempt status of a church? Or that if the government so chose (regarding the Catholic Church) you would be willing to "take up arms" and kill someone?

Don't let me put words in your mouth - I am simply trying to be certain that I understand your position. If I have it wrong, please help me to understand.

Thanks,
TVOR
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
pah said:

The Catholic Church is facing it's biggest challange in Europe. Countries, nominally bastions of Catholic faith are turning distinctly secular and this worries the Church. ( ReligiosNewsBolg thread - Vatican Is Alarmed by Political Trend In Europe )

I, however, am firmly rooted in a humanistic, secular society and I see talk of a theocratical nature as a threat to my way of life.

-pah-
Well, I only get angry when my faith is attacked without regard to the individuals inside the Church.
I see nothing in a humanistic, secular society as a threat to my way of life. As this forum has clearly shown, morality and virtue is not something that is exclusively Christian. It is the denial of those humanists of my right to believe differently than they do as a threat. My faith in Christ is just that, MINE.... I love you as a brother and pray every day that you come to have faith as I do, but that in no way demeans you as a person or makes me look at you with less respect.

To get back on topic.... my faith shows me that I should not vote for John Kerry.... I never needed the Church to tell me that...... it was written in my heart to respect life, and I believe that would be the same with belief in Jesus or not.

Peace,
Scott
 

Ardhanariswar

I'm back!
"Well, I only get angry when my faith is attacked without regard to the individuals inside the Church."

but you dont get angry when others attack mine or others? pretty selfless.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Gerani1248 said:
"Well, I only get angry when my faith is attacked without regard to the individuals inside the Church."

but you dont get angry when others attack mine or others? pretty selfless.
I never said that I don't get angry when people attack yours or other faiths. Nice try. :bonk:

I get angry when childish quips are tossed out..... I get angry when people like you try to incite anger instead of promoting unity...... I get angry when goodness is attacked, whatever form (faith or otherwise) is attacked.

Oh yeah. Congrats on 1,000 posts.
 

Economist

Member
The Voice of Reason said:
Are you saying that the government has no right to revoke the tax exempt status of a church? Or that if the government so chose (regarding the Catholic Church) you would be willing to "take up arms" and kill someone?

Don't let me put words in your mouth - I am simply trying to be certain that I understand your position. If I have it wrong, please help me to understand.

Thanks,
TVOR
The government can do that, but only if Churches are no longer serving their purpose as a place of worship. I don't believe any religious group should be persecuted because an article of their faith happens to coincide with a political issue.

If the government did start persecuting my religion, my first reaction wouldn't be to go out and kill someone, I would first try to bring change through peaceful means. I don't think that in this day and age it would ever come to an actual armed conflict, but I will certainly fight for my right to worship freely if necessary.
 

Katholish

Member
bandgeek500 said:
Kerry personally believes that abortion is wrong, but respects pro-abortionist beliefs. he is separating his faith from his (possibly soon to be)job as the president of a goverment that has no religion. he is not suppost to support the church's moral standings. he is suppost to support all religions and beliefs.

Whether or not Sen Kerry personally thinks abortion is wrong or not is not something that I can reasonably debate, but will only say that I will not concede that to be his person opinion because of his active support of it. It isn't just a matter of tolerating a practice which he personally thinks is immoral, but he does actively support its availability even voting for federal funding.

However, to so degree this point is unimportant, because if he were separating his faith from his actions, as you suggest, he be engaging in apostasy at some level. In other words, he would be acting against his conscience. Even if he did hold the officie of president, he would still be supposed to support the Church's moral standings because they are based on the natural law. It is true that as president, according to our system he is supposed to represent the will of the people, but that is precisely why we have elections. It does not mean that he does whatever the opinion polls say at any given time, but that the voters chose him to hold that office knowing what his positions are.
 

Katholish

Member
pah said:
Please explain to me why secular law should not be followed and the Church lose its tax exempt status.

I'm really not interested in any other explanation.

-pah-

The Church doesn't do anything to my knowledge to violate tax exempt statutes. The Church is not endorsing any particular candidate.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Don't you think that bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs is doing everything but outright endorsing Bush when he says that voting for Kerry is a sin that must be confessed before taking communion? I mean, it's a thin line perhaps, but it's pretty dang close to an outright endorsement.

I don't think the whole Catholic Church should loose its tax exempt status because of the actions of a few bishops (bishop Sheridan among them) but I do think that bishop Sheridan should have the tax exempt status of his diocesse looked into by the appropriate authority. If for no other reason than to make sure he's on the right side of the line.
 

Katholish

Member
Sunstone, for one thing, there are other candidates aside from the two, so saying that a person should not vote for one because of his position does not constitute an endorsement of another other candidate. I have many Catholic friends who are voting third party.
 

Katholish

Member
I will continue with the other questions that I listed in my first post.

2) Should the Church deny Holy Communion to such a politician because of his public stance against her teachings? The Church’s duty to deny Holy Communion in certain circumstances is outlined in the Code of Canon Law.

Code of Canon Law:
Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

St. Thomas Aquinas also addresses this point in the Summa Theologica.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 80, Article 6:
I answer that, A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it.

Canon 915 applies to pro-abortion politicians because they meet the three requirements set forth. The gravity of the sin as already been addressed. Their sin is manifest, because by nature of their office, their voting record is public. Furthermore, with the recent publicity regarding this matter and the press releases by many of the offending parties, it is hard to image a case in which the sin could be more open, manifest, and public. A person would be considered obstinate in persisting in their sin if while being aware of the Church’s condemnation of the act, continue in it. Pro-Life groups such as American Life League and Human Life International have taken considerable initiative in contacting offending politicians and making the Church’s position perfectly clear. To determine obstinacy, we may also look at a politician’s record over time.

Should the Church deny Holy Communion to such a politician because of his public stance against her teachings? Yes. This interpretation of Canon 915 is supported by the Holy See as is clear from a press conference held by Francis Cardinal Arinze, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in April of 2004 at which he said that politicians that are clearly pro-abortion should be denied Holy Communion and also from a private communication sent by Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick of Washington D.C. in July of 2004. The following is a brief quote of that communication:

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2000], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.



3) Who should make the decision to deny Holy Communion to such a person if they are not publicly excommunicated? A person could argue that an individual priest should not make the decision of whether or not to deny certain persons the reception of the Blessed Sacrament, but that he should only act if instructed to do so by his local Ordinary. In his promulgation of the New Code of Canon Law, Pope John Paul II wrote: “In promulgating this Code today, therefore, we are fully conscious that this act stems from our pontifical authority itself, and so assumes a primatial nature.” Further on in the same Apostolic Constitution he wrote: “Finally, canonical laws by their very nature demand observance. For this reason, the greatest care has been taken that during the long preparation of the Code there should be an accurate expression of the norms and that they should depend upon a sound juridical, canonical and theological foundation.”

As Pope John Paul II stated in his promulgation of the New Code of Canon Law, the laws set forth demand observance. Thus Canon Law is binding on ministers of Communion without prior approval of the Local Ordinary. Canon Law does not require the approval of the Local Ordinary, but is promulgated by “pontifical authority.” Thus the minister of Holy Communion is obliged to follow Canon Law which explicitly states that obstinate manifest grave sinners are to be denied Holy Communion.

Who should make the decision to deny Holy Communion to such a person if they are not publicly excommunicated? The minister of Holy Communion must make this decision for he is bound by Canon Law to act (or not to act as the case may be). However, the Local Ordinary should certainly see to it that this canon is being implemented, and his public affirmation of this application of Canon Law is to be desired.
 
Top