Vatican urges crackdown on Pols. that support right to choose...

[headscratcher4]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=4&u=/ap/20040423/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_liturgy_crackdown

Wonder where the strong stance was when it came to priests molesting kids.....:(

[Hexxenhammer]

Kerry spokesman David Wade would not respond directly to Arinze, but he reiterated Kerry's position on the separation of church and state that "helped make religious affiliation a nonissue in American politics."


"The decisions he will make as president will be guided by his obligation to all the people of our country and to the Constitution of the United States," Wade said in the statement. "Every American — whether they be Jewish, Catholic, Protestant or any other faith — must believe their president is representing them."

As opposed to the Shrub who says he's guided by god above all...


Sorry, this isn't the politics forum.

[jackmott]

I have read, perhaps it was here in one of the newsletters, that the church wasn't against abortion until earlier 'scientists' thought they saw full formed tiny people inside sperm cells through rudimentary microscopes.

lol

[headscratcher4]

It also occurs to me: shouldn't this papal injunction also be placed against those who support the death penalty?

[Kopji]

The 71-year-old Nigerian, who previously headed the office for relations with non-Christians, has been seen as a possible successor to John Paul, particularly if the College of Cardinals favors a prelate from the developing world.


It's soooo comforting to know that things are so wrapped up in good old Nigeria, (especially with that pesky AIDS problem made worse by using condoms), that the Catholic Church has time to worry about the US election process.


The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=4&u=/ap/20040423/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_liturgy_crackdown

Wonder where the strong stance was when it came to priests molesting kids.....:( It was here (http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/042402_pope.htm), among many other places at various times.

I'm intrigued by your interpretation of the news story you linked. Here's the relevant language:"[The Vatican document] said anyone conscious of being in grave sin shouldn't receive Communion without going to confession - a regulation that prompted questions about whether priests should deny Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry Communion because of his support for abortion rights.

[Cardinal] Arinze told a news conference that U.S. bishops should decide about Kerry. When pressed about the church's general position about Catholic politicians who are "unambiguously pro-abortion," Arinze said they should be denied Communion because they are "not fit" to receive it.From this you extrapolated "strong stance" in favor of a "crackdown" on politicians who vote pro-abortion? You might be right about the Vatican's position, but it certainly doesn't emerge from this story.

The only things we can reasonably infer from those two paragraphs about the Vatican's stance are:

1. The Vatican thinks that Catholics who are conscious of being in grave sin shouldn't receive Communion without going to confession.

2. The Vatican thinks that being "unambiguously pro-abortion" is gravely sinful.

That's it. That's all there was to the story. Did the Cardinal indicate that John Kerry or any other particular politician is "unambiguously pro-abortion"? No, although the commentators who raised the question seem to have concluded that Kerry probably fits the bill. Did the Cardinal elaborate on the Church's understanding of the term "unambiguously pro-abortion"? No. Did the Cardinal appear to want to engage in any consideration of the Kerry issue at all? No; he "unambiguously" punted the ball to the U.S. bishops. When he was pressed to give further comment, he offered (reluctantly, by all appearances) merely a carefully worded remark that the Church thinks that Catholics who are "unambiguously pro-abortion" should not be partaking in Communion.

Not only does this story not convey, by itself, a strong stance in favor of a crackdown Kerry or any other given pro-choice politician, but on the contrary, it conveys a rather bland, wishy-washy, and (given long-standing Church teachings about abortion, sin and the Catholic sacraments) utterly banal stance.

If you're looking for a relatively strongly worded expression in favor of a crackdown, the Vatican stance on the clergy sexual abuse issue is, by any reasonably objective standard, a much better example. How you drew the exact opposite conclusion is a mystery.
Originally posted by headscratcher4
It also occurs to me: shouldn't this papal injunction also be placed against those who support the death penalty?Good question, although my problems with this observation are twofold.

First, judging from the story, the Vatican statement was directed (in part), very generally, toward Catholics conscious of grave sin. It never referred to abortion. Rather, it was the unnamed commentators (journalists, one imagines) who raised the specific abortion issue (which was the part of the story picked up and repeated by you). If those commentators had raised the death penalty issue instead, how do we know that the Cardinal wouldn't have responded in equivalent terms?

Second, abortion and the death penalty are not exactly interchangeable in this context, because abortion is subject to a flat prohibition in Catholicism whereas the teaching on capital punishment is more nuanced.

However, the Vatican does appear to habitually reprove Catholic politicians (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=14179) about capital punishment in their countries.

[Darat]

Anyone found the complete question and answer regarding the abortion/communion comments?

All I have found so far is from here http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2528022

"Objectively, the answer is clear. The person is not fit. If he shouldn't receive it, then it shouldn't be given," Arinze said.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Darat
Anyone found the complete question and answer regarding the abortion/communion comments?

All I have found so far is from here http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2528022

"Objectively, the answer is clear. The person is not fit. If he shouldn't receive it, then it shouldn't be given," Arinze said. The New York Times reports a little bit more here (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/24/politics/campaign/24ABOR.html) (emphasis mine):The comments by Cardinal Arinze, a Nigerian who presides over the Vatican office on worship and the sacraments, came at a news conference in which he released Vatican directives on celebrating Mass.

These do not address the issue of Catholic politicians not in accord with the church's anti-abortion stance. When pressed about Mr. Kerry, Cardinal Arinze said it was up to American bishops to decide what to do in specific cases.

"The norm of the church is clear," he said. "The Catholic Church exists in the United States and there are bishops there. Let them interpret it."

Asked whether Catholic politicians who are unambiguously pro-abortion should take communion, a sacrament which Catholics believe is the body and blood of Christ, he said: "Objectively, the answer is clear. The person is not fit" to do so.

"If they should not receive, then they should not be given," added Cardinal Arinze, suggesting that bishops and priests should take the more extreme step of denying communion.This is the "strong stance" in favor of a "crackdown" on pro-abortion politicians? Sheesh. Say what you will about the Catholic Church of centuries gone by, but at least when it cracked down on something it wasn't this noncommittal about it, and you didn't have to resort to hyperbole in order to elicit the meaning.