Did you guys see the story in the Greenville News this morning about a Catholic Church in Greenville telling Obama voters to repent before taking communion because supporting Obama "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil"?
A spokesman for the Church based out of Charleston basically backed up the local priest's position that Obama is evil.
This is from the same church that KNEW about child rapists in their ranks and moved them around to other parishes, allowing them to prey on more children.
They couldn't even get their moral house in order despite that being the primary goal of all their money-grubbing and preaching.
I hope all of the Obama supporting Catholics will turn away from this false church.
Loading
544 views
Catholics: No communion for Obama supporters
Yeah ahammett, I'm by far no Obama supporter, however I think churches in general are getting too caught up in politics. They need to be worried about way too many other things. They need to be worried about souls and not polls.
-1
permalink
Fr. Jay Scott Newman - The Communion Nazi?
This has been debated for years in the Catholic Church. Here's a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now the Pope) to Cardinal McCarrick about this very subject:
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles
Here's the actual article written by Fr. Newman, in case you want to decide for yourself if ahammett's characterization is fair:
Dedication of the Lateran Basilica in Rome - 9 November 2008
...and here's the Greenville News article that ahammett so selectively quoted from:
Priest advises penance for Obama vote - Parishioners shouldn't take Communion until they do because of president-elect's abortion view, he says
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles
Here's the actual article written by Fr. Newman, in case you want to decide for yourself if ahammett's characterization is fair:
Dedication of the Lateran Basilica in Rome - 9 November 2008
...and here's the Greenville News article that ahammett so selectively quoted from:
Priest advises penance for Obama vote - Parishioners shouldn't take Communion until they do because of president-elect's abortion view, he says
Ahammett~
Are you, yourself Catholic?
What do you mean by false church?
Of course Andrew didn't do any research. I have seen this often. People take a statement and try to create an entire thread based on that one small part of a much larger matter. Most likely he will not take the time to read the two articles stringcheese provided and will continue to make his point based on the selectively quotes portion of the article. I doubt anyone is surprised by this form of "discussion".
I want to thank String for providing us with such good research.
I read all the articles. I am concerned with any church that tries to interfere with the political process. I believe strongly in separation of Church and State, to the point of said individual churches losing their tax free status when appropriate.
JD, I know the that it was meant to protect the practice of religion not protect the political process. Just as the right to bear arms was for the forming of a militia to protect this country from invasion not your personal property.
One of the articles states that if a Catholic votes for a candidate for reasons other than those concerning abortion and euthanasia it is not a "sin" and may receive communion. This seems to be a less controlling and fair minded option.
Everyone has the right to practice the religion of their choice regardless of tenets of that particular religion. The law of the land must decide if certain of these are illegal and punishable by the judicial system.
Petunia, should ALL groups involved in political activities lose their tax-exempt status, or are you singling out only the RELIGIOUS community to punish by inhibiting their right to participate? What would you do about Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Lewis Farakhan?
Hmmm. How about the Rev. Martin Luther King? Should he have just gone to the back of the bus and shut up, because, you know, we've got to keep RELIGION separated from POLITICS, don't we?
-1
permalink
NO!
Only those the "interfere with the political process" to the extent that they execute "power" over their members.
So, my guess is that organizing marches on the centers of government with the purpose of creating turmoil, in effect "interfering with the political process" and executing "power" ove their members wouldn't qualify?
Petunia, churches don't exert "power" over the members nearly to the extent you seem to think they do. If they did, there's be very little adultery, drinking, cussing, fighting, gluttony, greed, etc., etc., etc.
All they can do is tell you what their doctrine is and what the penalty is for not following it. Kinda like the police: You break the laws they enforce, there's a price to pay.
As for the Catholic Church, I was automatically excommunicated in 1974 when I remarried after my first divorce. They may have changed that rule by now, but I never bothered to check and see if I could still receive communion. I knew the rules. I broke them. Big deal.
That Catholic Church in the United States exerts so little "power" over its followers nowadays that it's almost laughable. Do you know they don't even approve of birth control devices and methods, other than that "rhytym system" we used to chuckle about - or abstinence, which we used to laugh out loud about?
No, Petunia, the goal of many nowadays is to take religion TOTALLY out of public life, in effect silencing one side of the debate as we hurtle toward being a society of no moral standards at all. The charade has gone on for almost a half century now, and I fear the majority has now bought into the bogus "separation of church and state" arguments posited by those who are anti-religion, to the detriment of our society as a whole.
Besides, as nearly as I can tell, the liberal definition of "interfering with the political process" means simply "voting for a Republican." That's bull****, Petunia. I know it. You know it. But I'll admit it. 
.
It has always been my understanding that a Catholic can confess his sins and receive absolution and then receive communion. So what's the big deal???? Also why is AHammet so outraged??? I thought he was an athiest anyway.
Speaking of athiests, can anyone tell my why athiests are so determined to wipe religion from the face of the earth and convert believers(especially Christians) into non-believers? I find it difficult to fathom why someone who does not believe in God (or a god) would find it necessary to go out into the world and convince others of there being no God. I believe as a Christian I have a duty to spread the gospel(the Great Commission). Do athiests believe someone have given them a Great Commission to spread unbelief?? Just asking.
Do any of you believe that a Theocracy is where we want this country to go if the Republic Democracy that we now have is obsolete?
I certainly don't want a theocracy, Petunia, but I also don't want to live in under atheistic government where all mention of God is outlawed and those who do believe aren't allowed to participate without being punished.
There is a happy medium here. We have managed to survive just fine with the concept of religious freedom intact for more than two centuries now. Our laws and our Constitution currently protect us from being persecuted or prosecuted for having strong religious beliefs, having no religious beliefs, and everything in between.
Why are some so determined to change that? Do we need a new slogan? How's this:
Change: We can't believe.
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Speaking of athiests, can anyone tell my why athiests are so determined to wipe religion from the face of the earth and convert believers(especially Christians) into non-believers? I find it difficult to fathom why someone who does not believe in God (or a god) would find it necessary to go out into the world and convince others of there being no God. I believe as a Christian I have a duty to spread the gospel(the Great Commission). Do athiests believe someone have given them a Great Commission to spread unbelief?? Just asking. -merrymacsc
Just answering. I am an atheist. No atheist that I know has tried to "wipe religion from the face of the earth". (I hear a violin and kettledrum in the background.) I don't recall EVER bringing up religion in any discussion I have ever had. But many people like you have felt it their duty to spread the gospel. So I find your statements above as unrealistic as most stereotypes seem to be. Most atheists are like me and because we don't speak up we are often included in the numbers for Christians. I even attend church sometimes, especially as I love the "Christmas" pageants and music. Of course, I do hesitate a moment at the door waiting for the room to burst into flames. I even had a discussion with your husband earlier this year about adopting or rescuing a dog(so a bit of my corruption might have been spread to him.)
-4
permalink
It has always been my understanding that a Catholic can confess his sins and receive absolution and then receive communion. So what's the big deal???? Also why is AHammet so outraged??? I thought he was an athiest anyway.Speaking of athiests, can anyone tell my why athiests are so determined to wipe religion from the face of the earth and convert believers(especially Christians) into non-believers? I find it difficult to fathom why someone who does not believe in God (or a god) would find it necessary to go out into the world and convince others of there being no God. I believe as a Christian I have a duty to spread the gospel(the Great Commission). Do athiests believe someone have given them a Great Commission to spread unbelief?? Just asking.-merrymacsc
I can't speak for all athiests, but I'd say a lot of athiestic anger towards religion has to do with it devaluing intellect, science, reason, and all of the other things that make humans more than just animals.
The reason I posted this was to illustrate the ridiculous attempts of the Catholic Church to act as a moral authority when they are bankrupt of any moral thought. Everything they did during that child sex scandal was designed to protect their power and influence, and no thought was given to all the children that were raped and used like toys by the Catholic Church.
Andrew, we all do enough with our posts to "devalue" our own intellects, and anybody who has watched the deterioration of civility in Anderson County politics over the past couple of decades can certainly "reason" went out the window long ago. It has nothing to do with the church.
It has more to do with human nature, free will and the natural desire of all human beings to be right once in awhile, even if it means somebody else is wrong.
By the way, science, reason and intellect are NOT incompatible with religion. Those of us who embrace both are frequently called "skeptics." That means we're capable of evaluating bogus science (global warming) as easily as we can evaluate bogus religious tenets (Catholic stances against birth control.)
See? We can all pick and choose what we want to believe in. Where's the problem?
I certainly don't want a theocracy, Petunia, but I also don't want to live in under atheistic government where all mention of God is outlawed and those who do believe aren't allowed to participate without being punished.
There is a happy medium here. We have managed to survive just fine with the concept of religious freedom intact for more than two centuries now. Our laws and our Constitution currently protect us from being persecuted or prosecuted for having strong religious beliefs, having no religious beliefs, and everything in between.
Why are some so determined to change that? Do we need a new slogan? How's this:
Change: We can't believe.
Yeah, I didn't think so.-jdtippett
I believe that we are saying the same thing with your sentence that states: "Our laws and our Constitution currently protect us from being persecuted or prosecuted for having strong religious beliefs, having no beliefs, and everything in between". That is how it should be but that does suffice for some. Many feel they are here to share their beliefs and their commitment to a particular form of religion. I have no problem with that. There are many lost souls that will find comfort in that. Unfortunately their are many religious zealots that preach "hellfire and damnation" to anyone who does not adhere to their doctrine and take advantage of those that have a need for absolution.
In case there is any doubt, I am not an atheist. I believe strongly in the "Golden Rule". I try to practice it every day. Not being perfect some days I fail but I try to do better the next day. I am sorry, that is the best I can offer.
Atheists are not taking over the United States and the sky is not falling, however there is global warming whether we are to blame or it is a natural phenomena. Who would have thought that we would have less than a year of water in Lake Hartwell.
Regarding global warming if you go back and read any of the major news magazines of the 70s there are articles about global cooling and a possible new ice age appearing. Now a mere 30+ years we are yelling about global warming. The globe may well be warming, but I believe it is natural phenomenon such as sun spot activity that causes it,not mere mortal activity. After all this globe has had ice ages and warming periods way before man came on the scene. Sometimes man over estimates his ability to affect things and way under estimates good old Mother Nature. Also trying to estimate what is happening in the global environment using short periods of time such as 20-30-50 or even 100 years is irrelevant. We need to look at periods of time in the 100s or better 1000s of year periods to get a real picture of what is going on.
Today in AIM an article in the "On My Mind" section Dr. Bill Griffith described the point I tried to get across on the subject of religion. The title was "Blinded by the Light". Probably available on their website for those of you that do not take the newspaper. Sorry I can't provide a link.
-3
permalink
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Freedom of religion also means feedom from religion.
