Monday, May 26, 2008

Communion as a Political Weapon


While widely reported and discussed in many forums, I have refrained from posting about the recent Kmiec matter, because I find it so distasteful and offensive. Professor Kmiec, a strong conservative and active defender of the unborn, was denied the sacrament by a Catholic priest due to Professor Kmiec's stated intention to vote for Senator Obama. I have received similar charges, that as a pro-life Obama supporter, I should be denied the sacraments. I offer this reflection now, because it seems reasoned and thoughtful. Little is more offensive than telling faithful Catholics that they are to be denied the sacraments. Even to stand in silence while others say this is unacceptable. Nothing but rancour and strife can come when one element of the church seeks to spiritually abuse another element. Let us pray that this matter is quickly put behind us.


May 24, 2008

CARY MCMULLEN

In my religious tradition, the eucharist (or communion or the Lord's Supper, if you prefer) is referred to as one of the 'means of grace.' That's a slightly archaic way of saying that the elements of bread and cup are an open window through which believers may know and receive the love and forgiveness of God.

In previous centuries, Protestant clergy were known to withhold communion from those judged morally unworthy. That practice mercifully has disappeared. For Catholic priests who administer communion — for them a sacrament with a lot more portent — that kind of discipline technically remains an obligation. Only it recently has taken on political dimensions.

In 2004, a minor controversy blew up over whether the Democratic presidential candidate, U.S. Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic, was entitled to receive the eucharist. A few Catholic bishops insisted that Kerry and any politician who supported abortion rights should voluntarily refrain from partaking of communion. Those who presented themselves for the sacrament anyway should be denied it, said the hardliners. There were no reported instances of this, but it made for some lively hypothetical situations.

It seems the eucharist is even being used — in the hands of an isolated few — as as a cattle prod to force Catholic voters into political line.

Such was the experience related by Douglas Kmiec, a professor of law at Pepperdine University in California. Kmiec is a constitutional expert who was a legal counsel to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, so he can scarcely be regarded as a flame-throwing liberal. He is also a traditionalist Catholic who recently endorsed Barack Obama.

In an essay last week on Catholic Online, an independent news and reference Web site, Kmiec first offered his reasons for supporting Obama.He was, he wrote, 'drawn to Senator Obama's remarkable ‘love thy neighbor' style of campaigning, his express aim to transcend partisan divide, and specifically, his appreciation for faith.' He did not expect, he says, 'to be clobbered by co-religionists.' Kmiec said Catholic bloggers told him he had excommunicated himself for supporting Obama. Then, at a Mass before a dinner at which Kmiec was to speak, he said, 'a very angry college chaplain excoriated my Obama-heresy from the pulpit at length and then denied my receipt of communion.' Kmiec went on to offer some thoughts on how Obama might 'unbuild walls' that have been erected on the issue of abortion. He also stated clearly and without rancor why he thought the chaplain was wrong.

He quotes the U.S. Catholic bishops, who have advised their American flock that it would not be permissible to vote for Obama if the intent was to vote in favor of abortion. But Kmiec is convinced that Obama himself is neutral on the question of government's role in abortion, leaving it to a woman's conscience and medical situation. And there may be reasons to support Obama on grounds of Catholic social teaching, he said.'Catholic voters are asked to consider what other social goods Obama represents and whether they can honestly and openly say that they are supporting him for that reason and not his stand on abortion,' he wrote.'[I]t is important to both reaffirm civility and the related principles of religious freedom that refute gleeful crusades, at home or abroad, to single out supposed apostasy where none exists.' That is well said. Four years ago, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington remarked that the communion rail is not the place to hold these discussions. And I think Kmiec himself would say that most bishops and priests would not behave as the chaplain did.

The hand that holds out the bread and cup should not be clenched.

Cary McMullen is religion editor for The Ledger in Lakeland, Fla.

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

I say anyone who presents himself/herself for communion, in direct opposition to the what the pope has stated, is the one making communion into a political weapon.

Rustler45 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Matt said...

So I guess now mere chaplains can, at their discretion, refuse communion to Catholic National Review columnists who are insufficiently opposed to torture? Any Catholic politician who has failed to oppose the Iraq War?

Is a Catholic politician opposed to the pastor’s social justice group? Back to the pews with you.

The Communion line is going to get pretty short, unless Bishops put an end to waging the culture war during Mass.

I give up: I think I’ll recommend to my pastor to refuse communion to any admitted Republican, until they publicly sign a renunciation of support for Unjust War, Torture, and Racism.

Of course, this will be countered by the Republicans in my parish, who will agitate for the denial of communion to anyone who has ever voted for a Democrat, until such time as they sign a renunciation of support for abortion, gay marriage and pre-marital sex.

So, I imagine Mass is going to turn into a situation of everyone checking carefully who receives, and the pastor, before offering the Body and Blood, asking for ID and checking a book to verify that each recipient is authorized to receive; meanwhile, we’ll all sit smugly in our pews and thank God that we are not like other men, especially those reprobate Demoncrats/Rethuglicans who are surely going to hell on roller skates.

Rustler45 said...

Here it is Katherine.

KATHERINE SAID: Professor Kmiec, a strong conservative and active defender of the unborn, was denied the sacrament by a Catholic priest due to Professor Kmiec's stated intention to vote for Senator Obama.

RUSTLER REPLIES: Voting for a pro-choice/abortion politician is not acceptable. Such a person who would vote for that politician is not a "strong conservative" or even a conservative at all. You must not have the slightest idea of what the terms liberal or conservative mean. Would you consider that it would be acceptable to vote for a pro-slavery politician? What if such politician said he was in favor of tracing the genealogy of all blacks and any who come from slave families should be returned to slavery. Do you think that if I made it public knowledge that I was going to vote for such a politician that the priest would be justified in denying me communion? Do you think that politics are exempt from morality? Answer that.

KATHERINE SAID: "…that as a pro-life Obama supporter, I should be denied the sacraments.

RUSTLER REPLIES: Maybe not if it was a private matter. The priest would not have the right to expose you by making public your mortal sin by denying you communion, but if you are a public figure and you make it public that that is what you are going to do then the priest has an obligation to deny you communion. Even if you are only a member of a parish and not a politician and you make such known publicly in defiance of Church teaching then the priest will also have an obligation to deny you communion. It has nothing to do with politics, but everything to do with the state of your soul and your acting as a public sinner. Either way you are still in a state of serious sin (i.e., mortal sin) and should have the virtue to deny yourself communion.

CARY MCMULLEN SAID: In my religious tradition, the eucharist (or communion)….

RUSTLER REPLIES: In his tradition it is not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ so what he says about it is of no consequence.

CARY MCMULLEN SAID: That practice mercifully has disappeared.

RUSTLER REPLIES: So??? So have a lot of other beliefs and practices disappeared from Christianity through Protestantism. The idea that you cannot receive communion when in the state of mortal sin is something that also disappeared in Protestantism. It is a Protestant idea that you can receive communion while in sin and therefore anyone believing such a thing is a Protestant not a Catholic.

CARY MCMULLEN SAID: Only it recently has taken on political dimensions.

RUSTLER REPLIES: For Protestants it may be political, but for Catholics it has to do with morality. BTW Catholics do not have the right to draw a line and say, "This concerns morality and therefore is of no concern to the Church. This is politics and therefore exempt from judgments by the Church."

CARY MCMULLEN SAID: " It seems the eucharist (sic) is even being used — in the hands of an isolated few — as a cattle prod to force Catholic voters into political line.

RUSTLER REPLIES: (He doesn't even know how to capitalize Eucharist.) What? "…force Catholic voters into political line?" What a crock that is. It has nothing to do with politics, but with morality. Do you want an immoral politician running the country?

CARY MCMULLEN SAID: Kmiec is a constitutional expert who was a legal counsel to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, so he can scarcely be regarded as a flame-throwing liberal.

RUSTLER REPLIES: That's about as ignorant as you can get. These people have no idea of what it means to be a liberal. Being a little bit liberal is like being a little bit pregnant!!! I have posted the link to LIBERALISM IS A SIN. Why haven't you read it and educated yourself on what it means?

CARY MCMULLEN SAID: He is also a traditionalist Catholic who recently endorsed Barack Obama.

RUSTLER REPLIES: Will someone please tell me what he means by "traditionalist Catholic?" Not even a good Protestant can endorse Obama.

KMIEC SAID: …Catholic bloggers told him he had excommunicated himself for supporting Obama. Then, at a Mass before a dinner at which Kmiec was to speak, he said, 'a very angry college chaplain excoriated my Obama-heresy from the pulpit at length and then denied my receipt of communion.'

RUSTLER REPLIES: Good for that priest! He said and did exactly what he should have done!

KMIEC SAID: But Kmiec is convinced that Obama himself is neutral on the question of government's role in abortion, leaving it to a woman's conscience and medical situation.

RUSTLER REPLIES: His logic escapes me. Leaving it up to a woman's conscience is not a neutral position. It is murder. Do you think that we should leave it up to a woman's conscience to kill her other children up to the age of 21? Should the government be neutral on that as well? The government is not exempt from morality.

CARY MCMULLEN SAID: …there may be reasons to support Obama on grounds of Catholic social teaching….

RUSTLER REPLIES: Not if he is pro-abortion.

CARY MCMULLEN SAID: And I think Kmiec himself would say that most bishops and priests would not behave as the chaplain did.

RUSTLER REPLIES: In that case we don’t care what either Cary or Kmiec thinks.

CARY MCMULLEN SAID: The hand that holds out the bread and cup should not be clenched.

RUSTLER REPLIES: Not only should the fist be clenched it should knock pro-choice/abortion people right on their asses.

Whadaya think Katherine?

Just Trollin'

Rustler45 said...

mat, you sure write a lot without having a clue about what you are writing.

Katherine said...

Rustler, my dear friend and brother in Christ -

You can write here whatever opinions you please. However, I am deleting posts in which you use profanity, or use the Lord's name in vain, or write things that are not appropriate for the children who read this blog.

Your friend and sister,

Kate

Rustler45 said...

"You can write here whatever opinions you please."

Katherine, I attempt in all my writings to avoid opinion. When I state an opinion I usually make it known. I write the truth not what is an opinion.

Cary McMullen on the other hand wrote an opinion. That's why I called it by it's correct term which you deleted. Do you have another term you think would have been more appropriate?

Here's an example of opinion, "Those who presented themselves for the sacrament anyway should be denied it, said the hardliners."

Notice his term "hardliners?" As if those who enforce canon law and the moral laws of The Church are "hardliners." Baloney. Denying communion to public sinners is and always will be a duty of the bishops and priests of The Catholic Church. By Cary's definition Jesus is a "hardliner." Or did you just read the sweet things He said and avoid the terrible frightening ones? Did you forget about his taking a whip to the money changers in the temple? Did you avoid reading where He said that if you obey all the laws, but one you will not be part of the Kingdom of Heaven? You must have missed that.

Do you grasp the concept of mortal sin Katherine?

Rustler45 said...

mat, do you realize that you sound like a Marxist Pharisee?

Rustler45 said...

BTW Katherine, why can't you answer my questions?

I know why and so does anyone else reading this blog.

You're dishonest.

Mattheus Mei said...

Katherine,

I'm reminded of what Sherry at Intentional Disciples wrote recently on this issue - Sherry works for the Sienna Institute. The Post is entitled Voting & Intrinsic Evil. She was speaking in 2004 to two theologians with special emphasis on the life issues, one a religious, the other a Bishop.

- Money Quote -

Fisher then made a fascinating comment that I have not heard elsewhere - that there is no basis in Church teaching for comparing two very different “intrinsic evils” and determining that one is objectively and absolutely more grave than the other.

One can compare levels of a similar intrinsic evil. You could say that 4,000 abortions is more grave than 40 or that a genocidal conflict that killed 10,000 was a more grave evil than one in which only 500 died. But you can’t, on the basis of current Catholic teaching, categorically determine that abortion, for instance, is always and absolutely more grave than a given unjust war or torture or severe economic injustice. By definition, something that is truly intrinsically evil can’t be relatively less evil anymore than a person can be only mostly dead (well, outside the alternate universe of the Princess Bride, anyway - although I did encounter some situations that came pretty close on the cancer unit).

So one cannot state, as definitive Church teaching, that the gravity of the evil of abortion must outweigh all other intrinsic evils or any possible combination of intrinsic evils in our political calculations. An individual could arrive at such a prudential judgment in a particular situation in good faith but an equally faithful Catholic could come to a quite different prudential conclusion in good conscience.

Sherry's emphasis not mine...

And most Catholics believe, even so called "hard liners" that what happened to Kmiec was not only wrong, but that he deserves an apology from the hot headed minister, to quote the Canon Lawyer Ed Peters "In short, by my read, Prof. Kmiec is owed an apology."

In short this is infact a tough road to hoe for ministers to take.

Katherine said...

Mattheus Mei,

I deeply appreciate your insight. Thank you for your contribution.

I have total respect for those who have reached a different conclusion than I have. But for those who try to mathematically quantify these things, I would have thin hope that I could get them to understand about a Shepherd who left 99 sheep to seek one sheep. It would just make no mathematical sense to them!

Betty said...

The Pope has given communion to pro-choice politicans so I don't see why any other priest should withhold it.

Rustler45 said...

mat SAID: "And most Catholics believe, even so called "hard liners"

RUSTLER REPLIES: "Most Catholics?" Says who mat? Where'd you get your figures mat? What's a "hardliner" mat?

mat SAID: ...that what happened to Kmiec was not only wrong, but that he deserves an apology from the hot headed minister...

RUSTLER REPLIES: He deserves no apology whatsoever. He publicly supported Obama a pro-abortion politician. It's a scandal. He deserves more than what he got. He's a scoundrel.

And next mat, what you're telling us is that abortion really isn't a serious evil in your mind.

Is that right mat? You compared abortion to several other evils yet you cop out when it really gets down to it. What politicians do you think are so horrendous that they should be denied communion mat?

Rustler45 said...

Betty, which politicians did the Pope give communion? Did he know that was who he was giving communion to?

Let's hear some proof here Betty.

Rustler45 said...

While you're at it mat, check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0IcnYWGSSE&eurl=http://www.moonbattery.com/April

And here's the link in Lubyanka Prison to read the post.

http://lubiankaprison.phpbb-host.com/ftopic485.php

Mattheus Mei said...

obviously rustler didn't pay attention to who I was quoting, Sherry from Intentional Disciples and her source Bishop Fisher - a well respected, and Vatican recognized Moral Theologian. I'm not saying and I quote: "you're telling us is that abortion really isn't a serious evil in your mind"
those are your words Rustler

I'm saying that I believe as Bishop Fisher says and the Magesterium of the Church teaches that: "there is no basis in Church teaching for comparing two very different 'intrinsic evils' and determining that one is objectively and absolutely more grave than the other."

And as far as the Apology goes, I certainly do believe he does, and well respected Canon Lawyer Ed Peters or did you in your select reading over look that, and it was a matter of conjecture that I said "Most Catholics," but it's a statement I make in confidence and one which is affirmed in conversation daily with "average Catholics." You say that he deserves no apology and that is your opinion. Where's your back up that he deserves none?

And in this instant I'm going to say that a hardliner is you Rustler, one who refuses to approach anything with the Charity that Christ and his Church teaches, a person who himself/herself is a Pharisee that refuses to remove the beam from his own eye before immediately pronouncing judgment on his peers and co-religionist.

And I'd like to apologize if my remarks seem rather acerbic but your statements, much like the Jewish folk who disbelieved Jesus could raise Lazarus, perturbs me.

Mattheus Mei said...

and which one are you, Calamity Jane? or Dominic? I've seen y'alls little site o'hate, you know any Bishop who saw even part of your writings would probably withhold communion from you, but then again, I wouldn't doubt it if your little group of hatemongers belong to some heretical sede vacantes group. If anyone is a malcontent or dissident - Rustler, Calamity Jane, and Dominic; it would have to be your antichrist like group, you trinity of shame and degradation.

Mattheus Mei said...

I apologize Katherine for letting my emotions get to me, but it's this type of internet harassment that is just so annoying.

Rustler45 said...

"I wouldn't doubt it if your little group of hatemongers belong to some heretical sede vacantes group...."

mat, quit your silly whining.

BTW nope, we are not sede vacantes. We are merely faithful Catholics who believe the Church. Please quote to me what we have done in there that gives a bishop grounds to withhold communion.

Did you register or post? Of course you didn't. You're too scared. You can't put your money where your mouth is can you?

Here's my first post to you in our newly created forum over there in Lubyanka Prison.

http://lubiankaprison.phpbb-host.com/sutra1902.php#1902

Enjoy

Katherine said...

Anonymous, I deleted one of your posts because you cursed. We don't have many rules here but it is a family oriented site.

Rustler45 said...

Katherine said...
Anonymous, I deleted one of your posts because you cursed. We don't have many rules here but it is a family oriented site.

Rustler asks... If this is a family oriented site why haven't you dropped Obama. He's not exactly family material. He is pro-abortion, and pro-homosexual.

Here, check this out:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56859

Of course Marxism isn't a problem for you or your supporters in here (i.e., mat, betty, and mat) is it Katherine?

Rustler45 said...

MATTHEUS MEI SAID... obviously rustler didn't pay attention to who I was quoting.

RUSTLER REPLIES: mat, is there any reason I should pay much attention to anything you say or quote??? So far you haven't given me, or anyone else for that matter, much reason.

FOR EXAMPLE:

MATTHEUS MEI SAID...I'm saying that I believe as Bishop Fisher says and the Magesterium (sic) of the Church teaches that: "there is no basis in Church teaching for comparing two very different 'intrinsic evils' and determining that one is objectively and absolutely more grave than the other."

RUSTLER REPLIES: Where did you dig up this "Magisterium" teaching? He never said anything about the Teaching Magisterium. He said there is no basis in Church Teaching. Well mat, there is no basis in Church Teaching on the game of Tiddlywinks, but that doesn't mean that the Teaching Magisterium has ruled on it. Theologian you are not. Give it up mat.

MATTHEUS MEI SAID... and her source Bishop Fisher - a well respected, and Vatican recognized Moral Theologian.

RUSTLER REPLIES: mat, that is so weak that I can only believe a liberal would say such a thing. Of course because liberals are always using one sort of logical fallacy after another to prove their point. "Respected" by whom mat? The Vatican recognizes? In what capacity is he a recognized theologian. Many heretics in history have resided in the Vatican.

MATTHEUS MEI SAID... And as far as the Apology goes, I certainly do believe he does, and well respected Canon Lawyer Ed Peters or did you in your select reading over look that…

RUSTLER REPLIES: No, I didn't overlook that. As a matter of fact I posted my disagreement directly to him over in the Ad Majorem blog several days ago. Maybe you should get around a little more mat.

MATTHEUS MEI SAID... and it was a matter of conjecture that I said "Most Catholics," but it's a statement I make in confidence and one which is affirmed in conversation daily with "average Catholics."

RUSTLER REPLIES: There ya go mat, conjecturing. First you say most and now you say average. Which is it mat? BTW the average Catholic in the pew is ignorant of his faith and you're not proving to be much better.

MATTHEUS MEI SAID... Where's your back up that he deserves none?

RUSTLER REPLIES: The burden of proof is upon you. Quit playing your little word games mat.

MATTHEUS MEI SAID... And in this instant I'm going to say that a hardliner is you Rustler, one who refuses to approach anything with the Charity that Christ and his Church teaches, a person who himself/herself is a Pharisee that refuses to remove the beam from his own eye before immediately pronouncing judgment on his peers and co-religionist.

RUSTLER REPLIES: And there you go again mat with your personal ad Hominem attack rather than prove your point. Is that the best you can do mat? And YOU talk about charity???

Why do you discredit yourself so?

MATTHEUS MEI SAID... And I'd like to apologize if my remarks seem rather acerbic but your statements, much like the Jewish folk who disbelieved Jesus could raise Lazarus, perturbs me.

RUSTLER LAUGHS AT A DUNCE: Why do you stand right there and look me in the eye while you lie? If you really were admitting that you were wrong and out of line you would have merely gone up above and deleted your personal attack before printing it and then there'd be no need for the apology. How disingenuous. How disgusting mat! Don't be making any more apologies that you don't mean.

MATTHEUS MEI SAID... and which one are you, Calamity Jane? or Dominic? I've seen y'alls little site o'hate, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah you trinity of shame and degradation.

RUSTLER REPLIES: Wow mat, you really poured it on. Why is it a liberal just has to call names and try to discredit his opponent rather than discuss in an intelligent manner? You know mat that makes your term "respected theologian" look rather weak now that you have shown us that you just make things up to suit yourself.

MATTHEUS MEI SAID... I apologize Katherine for letting my emotions get to me, but it's this type of internet harassment that is just so annoying.

RUSTLER REPLIES: Wah wah wah!!! What a sissy you are mat. Let's hear it again in your usual sissy voice with a whine. Don't you care about your manhood at all mat?

Mattheus Mei said...

"Within me lurks a veritable fountain of absurd positions, ridiculous arguments, straw men, malicious ad hominems, and through it all a malodorous ambience of intolerance and hatred."

(my own emphasis added)

Rustler's tagline from his prison site. I think that explains who he is so very greatly. Now that we all are aware of this we should probably contend to ignore him or rather "turn the other cheek" as the Saviour taught. Obviously conversation, dialogue, debate, no matter how logical, factual, or rhettorically resplendent will change his mind, and our responding to such only makes us frustrated and - by his very admitted nature - him happy. So we should just pray for him.

Rustler45 said...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAA

Still whining, huh?

I am so glad you liked my signature in my forum, but so far you have not had the guts to post over there. Whatcha 'fraid of mat?

mat SAID: "Obviously conversation, dialogue, debate, no matter how logical, factual, or rhettorically resplendent..."

RUSTLER REPLIES: And I caught you in a lie as well! hahahahahaha You obviously cannot accomplish above stated techniques. You are a coward and have just attempted to dodge the questions. You're back into your personal attacks rather than demostrate that you can actually accomplish logical rhetoric.

To all observers YOU are the troll mat. All bluster, personal attacks, and no useful discussion, nothing but hot air. It's so funny mat. I refuted everything you said and you couldn't do anything about it.

YOU lose mat. Sorry.

Now since we're done with that and since we already know that you are pro-abortion so tell us are you pro-homosexual (marriage, adoption, etc.)?

Let's hear it mat, since you can't do anything else.

Keep checking my forum for little messages to you mat. Be sure you have it in your Favorites.


And while you're over there check this one out.

http://lubiankaprison.phpbb-host.com/ftopic553.php

Your favorite candidate is berating his own people for being "homophobic."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAaaa

Rustler45 said...

Hey mat, I ask you again, "Don't you care about your manhood at all mat?"

Mattheus Mei said...

My manhood and masculinity are intact, thank you for asking.

You said you caught me in a lie, what lie?

You say I'm pro-abortion, those are your words not mine and if I am pro-anything or contra- anything, what concern is it of yours?

Nurse Rachet said...

Mattheus said....
"Within me lurks a veritable fountain of absurd positions, ridiculous arguments, straw men, malicious ad hominems, and through it all a malodorous ambience of intolerance and hatred."

(my own emphasis added)

Rustler's tagline from his prison site. I think that explains who he is so very greatly. Now that we all are aware of this we should probably contend to ignore him or rather "turn the other cheek" as the Saviour taught. Obviously conversation, dialogue, debate, no matter how logical, factual, or rhettorically resplendent will change his mind, and our responding to such only makes us frustrated and - by his very admitted nature - him happy. So we should just pray for him."

Nurse Rachet says...whats the matter Mattheus? No sense of humour?

Nurse Rachet said...

Also, it should not be up to the priest or bishop to deny you Communion. You ought to know better than to present yourself. And why would you think that it is not the priest's job to protect the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST! Who do you suggest should be responsible for this? It always boils down to this...a lack of belief in the True Presence. If you believed, you would not dare!

Rustler45 said...

MAT SAID: My manhood and masculinity are intact, thank you for asking.

RUSTLER LAUGHS AGAIN: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAaaaa!!! If you only knew.

Rustler45 said...

Oh Mat, you haven't stirred up enough gumption to actually post over at Lubyanka.

Is your manhood stopping you?

Mattheus Mei said...

don't worry Rustler, I only just got "approved" to post at your prison site

Mattheus Mei said...

@ Nurse Ratchet, Rustler's tagline doesn't require a sense of humor because his posts here define who he is which correlates with his tagline, guess what, I don't find it funny, you and yours probably do, but I don't and most likely no one else here does.

Corinthians 11:27-29; that it is up to the person to examine themselves and be cautious as to what they participate in when participating in communion. The scripture doesn't preclude a member of the Church from taking Communion just to consider the awesome power and meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ and the meaning of the meal and know that though the church, like Christ who gave of himself freely and completely, so does she to the flock she has been entrusted and like his giving it's not with out consequence.
A priest has a right to protect the Eucharist, but from Scripture itself, ultimately it's up to the individual believer.

SeanDaly said...

Very entertaining...

Mat: You seem to put more emphasis on being "cute" with your statements. A good strategy in book writing or maybe an editorial piece... not so much in a debate/discussion. Try to be more the point. Being pithy on how you came to such conclusion would be nice also.

Rustler: I like your style. No dancing around you just put out your points and counter points all while leaving little confusion on your context. But.... on the youtube post i'm confused. Wouldn't it be a good thing that Obama voted nay? Tough punishment should no doubt be placed on gang bangers but its not the govt's place to decide their death. Also, at the end you get sloppy but i'm guessing its from frustration of mat's responses lacking direct substance.

Betty: What were you thinking posting such a huge accusation without having any kind of a source?

Katherine said...

Betty: What were you thinking posting such a huge accusation without having any kind of a source?

Pope John Paul II personally gave communion to the pro-choice Italian politican Francesco Rutelli. Pope Benedict gave communion to the pro-choice governor of Bari.

Of course, at the recent papal Mass in Washington, DC, the pope's personal representative the Apostolic Nuncio, invited (among others) Speaker Pelosi and Senator Kennedy to attend the Mass and receive communion from him.

Nurse Rachet said...

Matt.
Please see Council of Trent, Session XII, Chapter 7.

Also, you still don't address the issue of the True Presence.

Nurse Rachet said...

Pardon me, that should have been Council of Trent, Session XIII, chapter 7.

SeanDaly said...

Katherine thanks, i'll take your word for it on 1st part. On Nuncio throwing in the "receiving communion" in his invitation to the speaker and kennedy, show me something please.

Katherine said...

Sean --

The Rutelli matter is quite widely documented and has been talked and written about widely, so I think a simple ‘Google' search can verify it for you if you have any doubt. I think that instance makes the point.

And I'm sure you realize that since Speaker Pelosi and Senator Kennedy were at the Mass and the TV cameras caught glimpses of them, there is not much doubt they were invited.

At the papal Mass (which is just 'standard operating procedure') the local dioceses are given a number of tickets for distribution to the faithful and honored guests of the local churches. The Nuncio, as the Pope's representative to the US Government, is given a bloc of tickets as well for dignitaries of the federal government and the diplomatic corps. With the dignitaries, the Nuncio inquires among the faithful Catholics if they plan on receiving communion so they can be seated separately from those who do not, for the simple reason of ease of distribution.

I hope this is helpful to you.

Rustler45 said...

MAT SAID: "...don't find it funny, you and yours probably do, but I don't and most likely no one else here does."

RUSTLER LAUGHS: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAA

Mat, that's because liberals don't have a sense humor. I can see why you wouldn't think it's funny. I find that those who have no humility have no sense of humor either.

Probably the reason you don't think it's funny is that it actually describes what you fear in yourself.

Rustler45 said...

MAT SAID: You said you caught me in a lie, what lie?

RUSTLER: That little fake apology. Did you already forget?

MAT SAID: You say I'm pro-abortion, those are your words not mine....

RUSTLER ASKS: If you're not pro-abortion what are you?

Rustler45 said...

Katherine said...
"Pope John Paul II personally gave communion to the pro-choice Italian politican Francesco Rutelli. Pope Benedict gave communion to the pro-choice governor of Bari. etc., etc."

RUSTLER ASKS: And this proves what Katherine???

Rustler45 said...

SeanDaly said...
"But.... on the youtube post i'm confused. Wouldn't it be a good thing that Obama voted nay?"

I'm lost here Sean. I don't remember a youtube post. Refresh my memory.

SeanDaly said... Also, at the end you get sloppy but i'm guessing its from frustration of mat's responses lacking direct substance.

Sean, you're going to have to be more specific. My head is getting fuzzy keeping up with all this.

Thanks.

Sean, have you been to Lubyanka Prison? Feel free to register and post over there.

Rustler45

SeanDaly said...

rustler the political ad involving obama and him voting nay for a law that involved capt punishment of gang bangers.

rustler your bringing up the liberal sense of humor reminds me of two idols of mine view on liberals.

trey parker and matt stone on a interview i saw on youtube talked about all the shit they got from the left from making team america world police and when asked why they make fun of liberals in TAWP and in south park episodes a lot more then they do conservatives they said something to the extent of when they make fun of republicans the repubs also find it funny. when they make fun of liberals, they respond with "how can you do such a thing?!" "i'll sue you!" aka no sense of humor.

Sean penn even threatened them by saying TAWP might help bush in his 2nd election. and they were like so? what if we like bush? lol i think penn was sore about his part in TAWP.... such a great movie

Rustler45 said...

SEAN SAID: "...when they make fun of republicans the repubs also find it funny. when they make fun of liberals, they respond with "how can you do such a thing?!" "i'll sue you!" aka no sense of humor."

RUSTLER SAYS: BINGO! No sense of humor.