Papal Nuncio Gives Communion To The Butcher Of Boston
The Cafeteria is OPENED (but was it ever really closed?)
Golly gee. Much beating of breasts and wringing of hands as to just why is it that so many lay Catholics blow off Catholic teaching.
Hmmm... lemme see if'n I can figure this one out. The Pope's representative in the United States personally gave Holy Communion to the Butcher of Boston, John Kerry... the same guy who proudly casts vote after vote after vote to ensure that millions of innocent children are tortured to death in their very own mother's womb.
Here's just a taste of the news story;
The issue of allowing pro-abortion politicians to receive Holy Communion has loomed large in the Catholic Church in the United States with a committee on the matter having been chaired by former Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick concluding only last week. While it was finally decided that bishops should decide for themselves on the matter, the church's canon law and the man who now serves as Pope Benedict XVI have indicated that such politicians "must" be denied communion.
Now if I may be so bold, let's take a gander at what The Catechism says about this.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"Formal cooperation". Supporting it... speaking tours in favor of it.... voting to keep it legal. Yeah, I think that would qualify as "Formal cooperation". But who am I to say?
After all, we have priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals (and their lay lackies) here in America that go against Church teaching not only on that subject, but on another hotbutton topic, as well. Again, straight from the Catechism;
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
The Church officially teaches that nations have the right to control their own borders. But who am I to say? I'm just your average, everyday Catholic who understands exactly what "Smoke of Satan" means.
I wonder how those clerics and their lay lackies justify their smashing of official Church teaching? Well, I have read their rationale. And tightly curled and smelly it was.
The Cafeteria is OPENED (but was it ever really closed?)
Golly gee. Much beating of breasts and wringing of hands as to just why is it that so many lay Catholics blow off Catholic teaching.
Hmmm... lemme see if'n I can figure this one out. The Pope's representative in the United States personally gave Holy Communion to the Butcher of Boston, John Kerry... the same guy who proudly casts vote after vote after vote to ensure that millions of innocent children are tortured to death in their very own mother's womb.
Here's just a taste of the news story;
The issue of allowing pro-abortion politicians to receive Holy Communion has loomed large in the Catholic Church in the United States with a committee on the matter having been chaired by former Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick concluding only last week. While it was finally decided that bishops should decide for themselves on the matter, the church's canon law and the man who now serves as Pope Benedict XVI have indicated that such politicians "must" be denied communion.
Now if I may be so bold, let's take a gander at what The Catechism says about this.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"Formal cooperation". Supporting it... speaking tours in favor of it.... voting to keep it legal. Yeah, I think that would qualify as "Formal cooperation". But who am I to say?
After all, we have priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals (and their lay lackies) here in America that go against Church teaching not only on that subject, but on another hotbutton topic, as well. Again, straight from the Catechism;
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
The Church officially teaches that nations have the right to control their own borders. But who am I to say? I'm just your average, everyday Catholic who understands exactly what "Smoke of Satan" means.
I wonder how those clerics and their lay lackies justify their smashing of official Church teaching? Well, I have read their rationale. And tightly curled and smelly it was.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
6:06 PM
10 Comments:
I prefer to think of Kerry as so irrelevant that the Nuncio simply didn't know who he was. Let me keep thinking that, OK?
Indeed. But the State does not have the reciprocal right of determining to whom the Church extends its Sacraments and charity, pursuant to the 1st Amendment.
The question becomes, do the actions of the Church aid the illegal immigrant in breaking the law (and there is no dispute, indeed they are breaking the law of the State)? As St. Thomas More would tell us if he were arounbd today, we are all the State's servants, but we are God's first. And it would be scary day when any Catholic compromises their religious duty (see Matthew 25:35-36) in deference to the State. After all, our State presently and unfortunately allows the slaughter of the unborn, but we have a moral duty to resist such conduct and work towards its elimination from our midst.
It's a choice we all have. The Vatican once made such a choice when it hid Jews behind its walls in defiance of the Italian government during WWII. Ask Bill Handel, a popular talk show host here in Los Angeles (KFI 640), whose father, Leo Handel, was one such person, spending the was disguised as a Jesuit and actually teaching Latin.
To even alluding that the legitimate immigration laws of the United States are even within sniffing distance to those of the Fascisti in Italy (and their Nazi German masters) is simply absurd, if not downright insulting. Grasping at straws, possibly?
As far as it would be scary day when any Catholic compromises their religious duty (see Matthew 25:35-36) in deference to the State... gee, when I made direct quotes from the Catechism, I was under the assumption that the basis of such was infact, grounded in "God's Word". Guess not.
I asked; I wonder how those clerics and their lay lackies justify their smashing of official Church teaching?
I think I just got my answer.
Really? I would have thought the Gospel is pretty straightforward on this point.
Or rather, Jesus since it's His words that are quoted in that text: "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me."
I guess that puts Him among the clerics and their lay lackies. That's OK, there is always room for Him at the table!
Question is, will He be at yours?
"And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'"
I think I just got my answer.
I knew the moment you typed your first comment here, that you would fall back on the "give drink to the thirsty" tactic. Predictable as it is weak.
Giving drink to the thirsty, etc, is exactly what this country does. In case you missed it, America takes in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined.
I don't seem to recall the Biblical passage "give welcome to he that kicks in your front door and breaks into your home". Can you tell where I can find that in the Gospels?
You might want to contact Rome and have them revise the Catechism. It obviously doesn't fit your personal agenda.
Your colander for an argument simply doesn't hold water. Nice try, though.
I asked; I wonder how those clerics and their lay lackies justify their smashing of official Church teaching?
I KNOW I just got my answer.
DigiHairshirt, suppose a homeless man comes to your door, and tells you, "You have a nice home, I want to live here with you."
You might say to him, "as an act of Christian charity, I will give you food and a bed for the night, and help you find a more permanent place tomorrow."
But if he says, "thanks, but when I come in, I won't leave again."
Do you let him in under those terms? I think, if you have a wife or kids, you don't. I think you lock your door against a man who has become quite scary.
And if he tries to break your window to enter, wouldn't you call the police?
And if I happen along, and worry that he might cut his hands on the broken glass of your window, and so give him a pair of gloves, do you salute me as an exemplar of Catholic charity? Or do you complain to the police about me as well, as an accomplice to the man's crime?
I don't seem to recall giving my permission to have my name placed out there for public consumption.
Have the good manners to ask from now on.
Paul,
You're using WAY too much common sense.
Digi,
I asked you in a decent fashion not to post my name. I see how far that went. Regardless if you agreed with it or not, I would have liked to have thought you would have the class to honored it. I guess not.
Much like your posting to 'refute' me that you placed on your blog (that took hours to compile), I see you're being OCD here as well.
Comment after comment after comment. One right after the other in rapid fire succession. And as far as your "love child" comment goes, was that suppose to be cute, funny, a case of slander... or just plain disturbing? Personally, it sent a cold chill up my spine.
Know this - I set the tempo on my blog. No one else. You're going out of your way to be, quite honestly, rude and classless.
Like I said before, I asked you nicely not to print my name. You failed to have the class to abide by that simple request.
All future comments by you will be deleted. In case you failed to notice, I no longer go to your blog. Have the good manners to respond in kind.
Had to delete SAM's comment. Poor Sam is under the delusion that I'll be "lonely" due to my deleting of his posts.
Hey Sam... I know this may be hard to take, but you really aren't all that important to me. LOL!!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home