« 69th AD Mailbox: Armando's Final Mail Piece | Main | Some Conservative Republicans Circle The Wagon For Schwarzenshriver »

June 05, 2006


Allan Bartlett

You're spot on Jubal about Bishop Brown. He doesn't utter a word about the pedophile priest scandal or anything about all the pro choice Catholics out there, but he will come out for a radical open border plan. Thanks again Bishop Brown for your leadership....errr I mean lack thereof.

Powder Blue Report

Gustavo Arellano

Brown, like Mahoney, is nothing more than an opportunist who shames the Word.

I'd like to hear Jubal..

Dear Jubal,
I was hoping you and some of your blogging crew would make some predictions on key races. Looking forward to reading them!


Gustavo, would you have preferred the Bishop said nothing about immigration? Did you disagree with the substance of his message? Should the Church be silent on all issues of faith because of its grave sin regarding the molestations?

For Jubal---Its interesting you use the cafeteria Catholic reference because thats exactly what many conservatives are doing on this issue. The Bishop has spoken out against abortion and that message seems to be fine with many conservatives who, to quote you, "cynically use the faith as a vote-getter.". But when the Bishops or the Pope talk about helping the poor or the immigrant, its cafeteria time for many conservative GOP types.



You are comparing apples and coconuts, amigo.

Come back when your reasoning resembles reasoning.

Gustavo Arellano

Sundance: I'd prefer the bishop deal with the hell the Orange diocese inflicted on innocents before anything else. Until then, his words are worthless.


Gustavo, your insults aside, would Bishop Soto been an acceptable messenger? How about Bishop Luong? Or is everyone admonished by you to take a vow of silence on church and public policy issues until he(they) deal with the hell the Orange Diocese inflicted on innocents?

Back to apples and coconuts and unreasonable reasoning, have you thought about how you might fit in @ the OCR along with Siler & Greenhut and their views of the Church?


Not to mention the conservative cafeteria Catholics' stances on war adn the death penalty . . . um, is my reasoning wrong too, Jubal? (And by the way, I am pro-life, just to head off any cafeteria accusations at the pass.)



Explain to me how being pro-death penalty makes one a conservative cafeteria Catholic? As for war -- are you referring to the Catholic Church's just war theory?


Back to apples and coconuts and unreasonable reasoning, have you thought about how you might fit in @ the OCR along with Siler & Greenhut and their views of the Church?

It would really help if you expressed yourself more clearly.


Because, Jubal, as if you didn't know, the Church is just as adamant about the death penalty as it is about abortion. You know that.


Au contraire, Rebecca. Here I quote Pope Benedict XIV from Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles (written in 2004 when he still Cardinal Ratzinger):

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

No cafeteria Catholicism here, Rebecca. That pew is reserved for Loretta Sanchez, Tom Umberg and Lou Correa, among others.


Gee Jubal, are they going to sit in the pew next to Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki and Arnold Schwazenegger?


It's a bipartisan pew.



Those were the first three local politicians who came to mind.


Yes, that was 2004. You also had a bunch of bishops and cardinals saying ludicrous things that year like voting for Kerry could get you excommunicated, adn that the death penalty wasn't as bad as homosexuality and abortion, because it didn't have the INTENTION of ending innocent human life--you know, like murderous homosexuality does. Before that, the three--the death penalty, abortion and unjust war--were considered equally bad. And now you understand why I'm not a Benedict fan--you know, aside from him defrocking Aristide for being a liberation theologist, running the modern Inquisition (seriously, same office but without the burnings), burying the pedo-priest scandals as one of the cardinals at the top of the hierarchy, and--oh, yeah--being a Nazi.



I don't know where to start to untangle that thicket of errors, bile, ignorance and distortion. It'll have to wait until after the election.


You know, Rebecca, we could always start with you producing the names of all those Bishops and Cardinals who said voting for Kerry was grounds for excommunication, and exactly what they said.


The bishop of Colorado Springs, for one. Cardinal Law, for two. Although perhaps I overstated it--they may have said you couldn't vote for Kerry and receive Communion.



I'd be interested in seeing what they said. I know bishops have warned Catholic politicians that being pro-choice renders them ineligible to receive Communion -- but I've never heard of a bishop saying that extended to Catholic who votes for a pro-choice politician. That would depend on why the Catholic was casting his or her vote for the pro-choice politician.

And I think "error" is a more appropriate term than "overstating it." Excommunication isn't just an "overstated" state of mortal sin.



From Christianity Today:
Bishop Bans Pro-choice Voters From Communion
Votes may be considered sin if cast for politicians who support abortions.
By Kevin Eckstrom, Religion News Service | posted 05/14/2004

Catholics who vote for politicians who support abortion rights or gay marriage will be banned from Communion until they have "recanted their positions" and confessed their sin, a Colorado bishop warned.

Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said any Catholic who does not reflect church teaching in the voting booth "makes a mockery of that faith and belies his identity as a Catholic."

Sheridan's May 1 directive is believed to be the first in the nation that would apply to voters the same controversial sanctions proposed by some bishops against abortion-rights Catholic politicians.

It is also one of the most drastic—equating a particular vote with sinful activity. Sheridan's order applies only to his diocese of 125,000 Catholics.

"As in the matter of abortion, any Catholic politician who would promote so-called `same-sex marriage' and any Catholic who would vote for that political candidate place themselves outside the full communion of the church and may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled by the Sacrament of Penance," Sheridan said.

While Sheridan's letter appears to condemn any vote for likely Democratic nominee John Kerry, Sheridan insisted "the church never directs citizens to vote for any specific candidate."

Kerry, the first Catholic with a shot at the White House in 44 years, has said he personally opposes abortion but supports a woman's right to choose the procedure.

Sheridan's letter comes as Catholic bishops continue to debate the best ways to treat Catholic politicians who dissent from church teaching, a matter that is especially touchy during an election year.

St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke was the first to say he would deny Kerry the Eucharist, while others—including Archbishops Sean O'Malley of Boston, Alfred Hughes of New Orleans and John Vlazny of Portland, Ore.—have urged dissenting politicians to not approach the Communion rail.

Sheridan's instructions echo those of Archbishop Charles Chaput of nearby Denver, who said last month that "real Catholics" should vote only for Catholic politicians who "act Catholic in their public service and political choices."

Singling out either Catholic voters or Catholic politicians is unacceptable, said Frances Kissling, president of the independent Catholics for a Free Choice.

"To a secular mind-set, it's more offensive to tell someone how to vote than it is to complain about a policy-maker," she said. "But from a religious perspective, both are equally offensive."

Catholic leaders rarely equate votes with sin. In 1996, retired Archbishop Philip Hannan of New Orleans outraged Democrats when he said it was a "sin" to vote for either President Bill Clinton or Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Other prelates, meanwhile, are urging caution. In an interview with the National Catholic Reporter newspaper, Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati said he would not want to "deny the sacraments to anybody unjustly."

"We need to be very cautious about denying people the sacraments on the basis of what they say they believe, especially when those are political beliefs," said Pilarczyk, an influential moderate voice and former president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, who is heading a task force that is examining the issue, reasserted that he does not want to use the Eucharist as "a sanction."

"I do not favor a confrontation at the altar rail with the Sacred Body of the Lord Jesus in my hand," McCarrick wrote yesterday in his weekly column for his archdiocesan newspaper.

"There are apparently those who would welcome such a conflict, for good reasons, I am sure, or for political ones, but I would not."

Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles seemed perplexed by the controversy.

"I'm slightly mystified why all this is all coming up now," he told Catholic News Service. "We've had pro-choice Catholic politicians going to Communion since Roe v. Wade," the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The comments to this entry are closed.