Actually MacB just read Sam's second link, it gives plenty of explanation for ex cathedra without changing the things Urban or Boniface were saying.
That's what I was saying, i.e. the Catholic Church, and remember now that's the Pope acting as theologian, not ex cathedra, isn't against capital punishment per se, but the limiting of it, and in civilized nations the rare if ever usage.
I understand why twhy77 quoted Catholic when referring to John Kerry. Unfortunately, we could probably put quotes around Catholic to define many of us (as we also could with Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc). Obviously Kerry publically disagrees with his church's teaching on abortion, but he is no different than many other Catholics who disagree with various teachings. The Catholic church (of which I am a member), should not refuse Communion to those who espouse different beliefs. Communion should only be refused to those who have committed grave sin and have not received absolution. The church is well within its right to encourage Catholic politicians to conform and preach to their tenets but it should not publically encourage specific folks to be denied Communion. The reception of Communion is a sacred act between the recipient and Jesus Christ. We, as a church, should not hold it out as a reward/punishment issue. In this example, this should be between John Kerry and his Priest.
The one on the Poep and the death penalty? Don't see how it answeres my questions. But Cohen is correct, and I ment to include something to that effect in my post, but forgot. I will say, however, that this isn't really news. Since Woodward's revalation, not even denied, that Bush believes he is on a mission from God, and defies actual findings based on his faith, nothing like this will surprise me. I am amazed at how little press that apsect has gotten in the 'liberal' press.
I agree to an extent, that's why I liked it when Cardinal Mcarrick said that he is really oppossed to the politicians not voting for something but he wanted to stop short of denying communion for the time being because I think it is a question that deserves full consideration. However, from the other side, you have to say, wow he is in direct control of measures that either go against or with our teachings and he is choosing to go against. To what extent does this make him accountable? It needs careful deliberation, and I'm glad the Cardinal is giving the matter careful deliberation.
Twhy77 you're quite the "American" --- now run along so this thread can return to its intended (interesting) subject. Flamer.
One of us is missing something here. This is the second link, no? http://www.cathnews.com/news/312/10.php) If so, like I said. If not, pray for me.
The problem is that it is a huge slippery slope. If Kerry is publically refused Communion, then the church should refuse Communion to a Catholic doctor who dispenses birth control pills. You are correct that it needs careful deliberation. That being said, if it is ever determined that you can refuse Communion in instances such as this, the Catholic Church is in for a huge upheaval.
Technically, I don't think they are suppossed to deny communion to anyone. It's sort of honor's system, one should deny communion to themselves if they are in mortal sin. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Hitler showed up to mass and went up for communion. Technically, he could have gone to confession and been free from sin.
Twhy... I've heard that excuse before, and dealth with it in my very post. What happens is that they laterredefine things on which they were proven incorrect as not having been matters of faith; for example, Gallileo's position was a matter of science, not faith, etc. Problem with that is; it was considered a matter of faith at the time, hence the charge of heresy. If you only define what was and what was not a matter of faith when your conclusions are disproven, it eliminates any incentive to believe you in the here and now; what if ( and I don't agree with this, but for argumentsd sake) years from now it is proven beyond doubt that human life doesn't begin until the 3rd trimester, or whatever. The Church then redefnies it as a matter of science, not faith, and vopila; infalliblity on matters of faith continues. Second issue, no redefinition of Urban's decree can alter it. He cited DIvine inspiration issued bulls to the effect, and announced it in public. The issue at had was the Allmighty's judgment of human souls based on actions sanctioned by the Church. You can try the contradiction argument, but then you always can; one of Luther's most repeated arguments was to point out contradictions. But if they're only seen as valid.therefore nullifying the infallibility of the Pope centuries later, once again, after having been proven wrong, you're back to the same post applied rationale that leaves us no reason to blieve anything a current Pope says might not be subject to reinterpretation in a century or so.
Thwy, I was really hoping for an answer from a fellow "catholic": I do not think abortion is a "good" action. I also do not think trying to enforce this belief though the use of prisons, etc. is a good action. Where does that leave me as a "Catholic"?
