www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Rites and Wrongs - from the WSJ

Dear Hal,

That's "Loyal Subject," Veliky Choloviche ("Big Guy")!

O.K. so if I lived in the U.S. on a work permit, I wouldn't necessarily be in a great hurry to become a citizen so I could vote for anyone!

But for those who are U.S. citizens, is there some place they could go to apply for "non-citizenship" status?

Well, my position here is whatever the Administrator says it should be!

That way, if I get into trouble with the Church, I could always blame it on him!

(I wouldn't do that to you since you are of the UGCC - no moral qualms regarding the Administrator in this respect though . . . )

God bless!

Alex

Again.

Why do people care so much about this man's opinions about personal morality? We can agree or disagree but it isn't important as long as there's no public scandal involved.

But what about taking public part in a blatantly antichristian ritual that simulates and mocks the sacraments and the priesthood (as he did when he attended a "priestess" protestant service last week?).

Isn't this a public scandal and public adherence to heresy, sacrilege, simulation of sacraments and so on?

If they cared about religion they would talk and condemn the second episode, and not the first one which is irrelevant and is merely used as a way to use religon for politics. [Linked Image]

Dear Mexican, that was MY rely from the John Kerry and Latin Legalism" thread. You can see, it WAS mentioned. What he did would have excommunicated him in Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

However, I am a bit confused by YOUR point...

You claim not to see why a man whose private morality supports the murder of unborn children is more than PRIVATE morality if he holds public office and can influence the law of the land.

On the other hand, whether he "eats and drinks condemnation on himself" for doing what he did (flaunting the rules of the Catholic Church, and effectively self-excommunicating himself by receiving in a Protestant Church, to prove his will over Rome's, IS personal, and only damns him.

Yes, it scandalizes many. There is that aspect of it. But millions of unborn children will not die as a result of his pro-murder" policy. The next president may be in a position to appoint Supreme Court Justices to determine whether laws proposed are constitutional or not.

Roe v. Wade may be overturned, as even ROE wants it overturned, and it was a poor piece of law to begin with. This assumes that the justices are conservative, with a sense of moral value and love for the life of unborn ones. Homosexual Marriage is anotehr issue the coursts will have to decide shortly. It matters GREATLY if the President of the United states is FOR or AGAINST such, as he will appoint the justices who rule whether laws can remain, ammendments can be made, and other issues impacting the daily lives of millions. Morality DOES matter when it comes to policy.

When it comes to his PERSONAL salvation, I have already said I think he cares no more for God than an admitted atheist does. If he did, he would NEVER have dared to take Communion in a PROTESTANT CHURCH, thereby excommunicating himself from the Catholic Church, unless he repents. Who can look upon the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior and treat it as a media event?
Something to joke about?

I hope and pray with all sincerity that he does repent, and does ask forgiveness inthe sacrament of confession. And then I hope he seeks they advice of a spiritual father who can guide him, one who shows concern for his soul, and doesn't CARE that he is a political figure of national importance who must be catered to.

Gaudior, who is tired of politics already.

Dear Hal,

There are simple answers: "I am the way, the truth, and the life!"

There are simple, but difficult answers.

We should all read the stories of the martyrs again, who were overjoyed to be hated, spat upon, and killed for Christ.

Martyrdom is very simple.

Christ is Risen!
Truly He is Risen!

Selective memories we have when quoting Scripture...

Yes, we should not cast the first stone, for we are all sinners, BUT:

CHRIST TURNED TO THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY AND SAID "GO NOW AND SIN NO MORE!"

She was forgiven through repentance, which carries with it a promise to try not to fall into that sin again. He didn't "tolerate her lifestyle", nor did he condemn her personally.

Hate the sin, love the sinner, is the maxim. But don't fool yourself that sin is other than sin. Whether the sin is gluttony, pride, anger, or fornication,(homosexual OR heterosexual) it IS a sin. Not a lifestyle choice. The very fact that we have come to the point where we have no problem with people (of any persuasion) deciding it is OK for them to co-habitate before marriage and no longer view this as sinful says a great deal about how much society has been corrupted by those who say "it's a lifestyle choice".

Every major religion from Christianity to Islam condemns this. Fifty years ago, before it became a political agenda, the moral erosion we are in due to "lifestyle choices" would be unimaginable.

And it has come about because people have decided that they cannot stand up for what they profess...or because no one has taught someone that sin and sinner are separate, and how to help someone in love and compassion...rather than looking away, shrugging, and saying "I go to Church, I have my own sins, I won't judge/see/try to advise/help because I sin too."

Rather than a network of friends we can count of to help us toward theosis, we have friends who help us feel all comfortable. That is not a good thing.

Gaudior, again reminding that those who set PUBLIC POLICY MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO MORAL STANDARDS OR SOCIETY ERODES.

Point definately taken on the "Go and sin no more" But leagalizing and fobidding and condeming seems to be more the attitude.
A loving example and guidence is not coming across when people begin talk against a certain person or dening the Eurchrist or excommunication.

Thanks for your previous comments and the respectful tone. Points well taken.

Lord, Grant us peace.

The two above statements are contradictory.

Also, just because homosexual attraction might not be the person's fault, they are responsible for WHAT THEY DO with that attraction.

Just like I might be an alcoholic "naturally", but if I use that "orientation" towards the excessive use of alcohol in order to justify my abuse of alcohol, I will be committing voluntary SIN. The sin lies in WHAT ONE DOES. If I were attracted to other men, there is no sin in that alone; if I have sex with other men, THAT IS A SIN CRYING TO HEAVEN.

Your "tolerance" is miguided and uncharitable. To confirm erring bretheren in their sin is THE GREATEST UNCHARITY ON THIS EARTH.

God bless you. May He bring you into agreement with Him on moral issues.

In Christ,

LatinTrad

Dear PS:

Fine. He is the Way, Truth and Life. OK ... and that exactly means ... what?

"He" is what the Pope says he is? Believe it or not, there ARE people on this Earth who will disagree with that. I may not and you may not, but the fact of the matter there are those who continue to disagree in their heart of hearts with the Catholic Church's position on certain issues of morality. Even those who consider themselves Catholics.

So, back to the question at hand. The point of the discussion here is whether the Church should excommunicate a politician whose public persona is at odds with the Church's teachings.

If this is so, should we all to disavow our US citizenship becasue Roe v. Wade is the law here for fear of excommunication? Even if we do so, but choose to stay here, should we stop paying taxes (i.e. allowing the government to function) for fear that the Church will someday see this as grounds for excommunication?

Heck, if heaven truly cries out for vengenance as LT (with his Latin bias) says, then why are we not taking up arms against our government and going after every judge, legislator and executive official who refuses to outlaw abortion? Better yet, if it is a government truly "of the people," then why stop with the government, let's kill everyone who voted who put them in power in the first place?

I think you see what I am saying. If you want a government that is 100% de jure and de facto in conformance with Catholic teaching, I challenge you to find any place on Earth other than the Vatican where this the case.

Now tell me again how simple this all is.

Yours,

hal

Velmyshanovnyj pane Doktor:

Loyal Royal Subject it is.

Now if you could get your countrymen to stop booing the Star Spangled Banner during hockey games ....

Did you ever get the feeling that Canada is the attic apartment above a really great party?

OK, I'll stop.

Z poshanoju:

"hal"

Dear Hal,

I gave you the examples of the saints for a reason: we venerate them because they are examples of holiness.

Now,ask yourself: what would Basil or John Chrysostom have done in the present situation? Go thou and do likewise.


Should Kerry be excommunicated? Seems very simple to me that he should. Imagine again what St. Basil would do when confronted with a candidate who votes for being able to thrust scissors into the brains of babies.

Should we pay taxes? Yes. Render unto Caesar and all that.

Should we work to make sure that every pro-abort politician, judge, and dog-catcher is booted from office? Yes. Of course we should.

I fail to see the complexity. We must vote our faith. Or it isn't really faith.

One can imagine Pilate discussing things with his wife. Mrs. Pilate says "You should release Jesus--he's innocent. Pilate says "It's complicated."

Do any politicians identify themselves this way?
For you to label someone that way, what exactly must they do?

Fine.

As I've suggested elsewhere, my faith also tells me that this evil must be eliminated. And my reason tells me that the only way this will get done, as long as we don't abandon our experiment in liberty and self-government, is to develop a culture in which the valuation of life is seen as a social responsibility.

That development will not come from conservative social darwininsts. And the authoritarians will just provoke lovers of liberty to man the barricades. We will, IMO, get there more surely, perhaps ironically, from the ethos of the left, rather than the right.

And I will further suggest that those who revel in a simple litmus tests and deliberately ignore the complexity of this problem are complicit, albeit involuntarily, in the continuation of this evil.

Your strategy of just voting 'em out will fail. The people who don't make the Catholic leap on life are too numerous to be simply beaten. They must be won!

DJS:

Voting against a partial-birth abortion ban qualifies a person as pro-abort. Seeking and getting the endorsement of Planned Parenthood qualifies such a person as pro-abortion. Promising never to appoint pro-life judges makes him pro-abortion.

What's so complex?

You are posing a false dilemma: either try to win hearts and minds, or vote against pro-abortion candidates.

Why not both?

Note I am making no claims for the catholicity of the ethos of the right, but I am somewhat baffled by your claim that the ethos of the left will more easily lead to the culture of life. The left is the side that consistently pushes abortion, euthanasia, cloning, stem cell research, gay marriage, the de-sacralization of sex, and the prohibition of religion from the public square. What in that gives you hope?

Once again, what would St. Basil or John Chrysostom do?

I am happy to see this completely differently.

I think pro-abort needs to mean in favor of peeople having abortion. You use the term too loosely; you might be including people who really think that our ethos must come from grass-roots to have effect, not by government decree. One might find abortion despicable, but tyranny more-so.


On left and right. Little in what you mention gives me hope. But nothing at all in the agenda of the right gives me hope. What hope I have is in the roots: when we cooperate in securing the blessings of liberty for each other, we grow far beyond self. With this orientation one can move directly to an enhanced sensitivity to all life, includng pre-born.

Apart from the authoritarians on the right (who may mean good, but make me nervous), the orientation is entirely misdirected. How do pre-born, helpless and needful, fit into the mythos of rugged-individualism?

Dear PS:

Saints are indeed examples, but, to the extent that my humble self can predict what St. John C. would do, I submit to you that he would win people's hearts over with his "golden" words and not take to the political realm. I further submit to you that he would not condemn and call upon the wrath of God and his Church to strike at every "pro-abort" politician and voter in the land.

You ask us to vote our faith. In this year's Presidential campaign, neither of the major party candidates has acted in conformance with what the Catholic Faith would require -- Mr. Kerry's views on abortion on one hand and Mr. Bush's fighting of a morally suspect war on the other.

So are you saying that we should remove ourselves from any meaningful participation in the 2004 Presidential election? If that is indeed the case, then where does our "removal" of ourselves from US political life end? (See slippery slope argument above.)

If we are truly to give unto God what is God's and unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, is it not possible for someone to say that, as a limited matter of US Consitutional law Roe v. Wade is "correct" but on the other hand, as a matter of one's faith and morality, it is a form of murder?

To borrow from the Latin tradition and, specifically, St. Augustine, where does the City of God within us end and the City of the Earth begin (and vice versa)?

In our Eastern tradition the question becomes more complicated becasue we are called upon to immitate Christ by nurturing within ourselves that which is divine but is, at the same time, human - and doing so every moment of our lives.

I'm sorry if I do not see a simple answer, but I respectfully submit to you that simply "voting our faith" is not as easy as you make it sound.

Even if it were that simple, I humbly agree with DJS that its productive value would be limited if you did not win over people's hearts.

Yours,

hal