No communion for Paul Martin?
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 09/30/05 - 07:49 Post subject: No communion for Paul Martin?
I heard on the news on my drive in this morning that there is a group of Roman Catholic Cardinals who are proposing that the RC church deny communion to politicians who pass laws that violate church law.
This is a big issue here in Canada as our Prime Minister is a devout Catholic and has recently passed legislation allowing same sex marriage.
What do you think about this? Is this a reasonable case of the church keeping their members accountable to the tenets of church doctrine or is the church just trying to exert its influence on matters of state?
I'll look for an article to link to later when I have more time.
Edited to add:
While looking for an arrticle I found that this is an old story (no surprise there) and there is already an "unofficial" church policy of denying communion to pro-choice politicians who claim to be catholic. What they are talking about now is just a little broader to include any legislation that is contrary to church doctrine.
Last edited by TOsteve on 09/30/05 - 08:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 08:07 Post subject:
It is absolutely okay in my book for a group to enforce rules. Why have them then?
Though it may not be a popular stand it cheapens the rules if they are not enforced on certain people.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 08:19 Post subject:
If he has as devout a Catholic as you claim he is, his faith would have intervened, and he would not have approved gay marriage, which clearly defines marriage in the Catechism
As for the issue of him not receiving communion. I'm with the church on that, in fact I'd like to see them do it more often.
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 08:25 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | | If he has as devout a Catholic as you claim he is, his faith would have intervened, and he would not have approved gay marriage, which clearly defines marriage in the Catechism. |
Sorry, I should clarify. The media always describes him as a devout Catholic. Personally, I have no idea what constitutes "devout" in their eyes, probably just that he attends mass every week..
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 13:23 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | If he has as devout a Catholic as you claim he is, his faith would have intervened, and he would not have approved gay marriage, which clearly defines marriage in the Catechism
As for the issue of him not receiving communion. I'm with the church on that, in fact I'd like to see them do it more often. |
in my opinion the church should be open enough to have debate on these issues...many of the church's own clergy do not agree lock step with the official 'church' position on a number of issues...
faith doesn't need to be nor should it be so rigid that you take every papal decree and internalize it...that isn't faith, that is weak-mindedness...
---
megawill
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 13:24 Post subject:
I know there are a lot of angles from which to approach this topic, but here’s a thought….
Is Paul Martin actually breaking church law by passing same sex marriage legislation? I'm not 100% clear about RC church doctrine so correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it just state that engaging in a homosexual act is sin? From all the outward evidence I've seen, Paul Martin is a heterosexual (after all he is married to a person of the opposite sex).
By passing legislation that gives homosexuals the right to the legal benefits of marriage just means he believes in equitable human rights (which I believe is an important concept in all Christian doctrine). It doesn't make any statement about his personal feelings about whether homosexuality is sinful or not.
And about marriage definitions - he's certainly not asking the Catholic church to redefine marriage. He simply approved of the state's redefinition of marriage in order to afford certain legal rights to a group of people that law was previously discriminating against.
I honestly don’t see how he’s sinning?
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 13:29 Post subject:
I have always seen communion as a way to commune with God.
It's like saying only the righteous should be allowed in church. If you think someone is going against God and His precepts--wouldn't it be more effective to get them INTO the church?
Communion: you ask God to cleanse you of your sins--(because we all sin) and come to God's table cleansed to share of His sacrifice.
I think it's up to God to convict the sinner---and what better place than in God's house?
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 13:36 Post subject:
| airehead wrote: | I have always seen communion as a way to commune with God.
It's like saying only the righteous should be allowed in church. If you think someone is going against God and His precepts--wouldn't it be more effective to get them INTO the church?
Communion: you ask God to cleanse you of your sins--(because we all sin) and come to God's table cleansed to share of His sacrifice.
I think it's up to God to convict the sinner---and what better place than in God's house? |
Nicely put, Aire. The key is you come to God with a contrite heart for a sin you have committed. And to go determined not to commit that sin again.
The question here would be, does PM Martin take communion to seek forgiveness for a duty he carries out in his job that goes against his Church's tenets? I guess the answer is that it is really a matter between him and God.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 16:14 Post subject:
A politician's job is to represent the people, NOT to pass laws based on his religious beliefs. The Church is trying to exert influence on matters of the State and it is not right. Keep your religion out of my laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 16:29 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | A politician's job is to represent the people, NOT to pass laws based on his religious beliefs. The Church is trying to exert influence on matters of the State and it is not right. Keep your religion out of my laws. |
I don't think it is that simple. Canada may be different, but we elect officials to vote a certain way and we assume that if we elect a pro-life, right wing official that the official will vote in a manner consistent with his beliefs and what he stands for. Yes, he should represent the wishes of his constituency, but we don't really expect the official to vote in a manner that he finds uncomfortable. It is often part of the platform the candidate runs on: what does he believe is right on a set of issues. Then if elected he votes in a manner consistent with those beliefs.
His religion will naturally inform those beliefs so I don't think it is possible to separate the two except by incredible popular demand by the consituency to vote a different way.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 16:38 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | A politician's job is to represent the people, NOT to pass laws based on his religious beliefs. The Church is trying to exert influence on matters of the State and it is not right. Keep your religion out of my laws. |
I don't think it is that simple. Canada may be different, but we elect officials to vote a certain way and we assume that if we elect a pro-life, right wing official that the official will vote in a manner consistent with his beliefs and what he stands for. Yes, he should represent the wishes of his constituency, but we don't really expect the official to vote in a manner that he finds uncomfortable. It is often part of the platform the candidate runs on: what does he believe is right on a set of issues. Then if elected he votes in a manner consistent with those beliefs.
His religion will naturally inform those beliefs so I don't think it is possible to separate the two except by incredible popular demand by the consituency to vote a different way. |
I think you are missing CB's point though. That same constiuent could be known as a pro-choice candidate, represent his people.....yet in his very private life be pro-life and take communion. He is able to separate HIS belief system from that of his job.......many physicians and pharmacologists do this on a regular basis, why not politicians?
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 16:44 Post subject:
| runaroundsue wrote: | | Pug wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | A politician's job is to represent the people, NOT to pass laws based on his religious beliefs. The Church is trying to exert influence on matters of the State and it is not right. Keep your religion out of my laws. |
I don't think it is that simple. Canada may be different, but we elect officials to vote a certain way and we assume that if we elect a pro-life, right wing official that the official will vote in a manner consistent with his beliefs and what he stands for. Yes, he should represent the wishes of his constituency, but we don't really expect the official to vote in a manner that he finds uncomfortable. It is often part of the platform the candidate runs on: what does he believe is right on a set of issues. Then if elected he votes in a manner consistent with those beliefs.
His religion will naturally inform those beliefs so I don't think it is possible to separate the two except by incredible popular demand by the consituency to vote a different way. |
I think you are missing CB's point though. That same constiuent could be known as a pro-choice candidate, represent his people.....yet in his very private life be pro-life and take communion. He is able to separate HIS belief system from that of his job.......many physicians and pharmacologists do this on a regular basis, why not politicians? |
Exactly. And if a politician wants to be anti-choice, right wing, it should be because that's what he thinks is best public policy, and because that is how the Constitution should be interpreted. He should NOT be attempting to make laws about a woman's right to choose or gay marriage or anything else based on what the Bible (or Koran or whatever), tells him to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 16:53 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | A politician's job is to represent the people, NOT to pass laws based on his religious beliefs. The Church is trying to exert influence on matters of the State and it is not right. Keep your religion out of my laws. |
Why does God or the mere mention of religion bother you so much?
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 16:58 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | runaroundsue wrote: | | Pug wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | A politician's job is to represent the people, NOT to pass laws based on his religious beliefs. The Church is trying to exert influence on matters of the State and it is not right. Keep your religion out of my laws. |
I don't think it is that simple. Canada may be different, but we elect officials to vote a certain way and we assume that if we elect a pro-life, right wing official that the official will vote in a manner consistent with his beliefs and what he stands for. Yes, he should represent the wishes of his constituency, but we don't really expect the official to vote in a manner that he finds uncomfortable. It is often part of the platform the candidate runs on: what does he believe is right on a set of issues. Then if elected he votes in a manner consistent with those beliefs.
His religion will naturally inform those beliefs so I don't think it is possible to separate the two except by incredible popular demand by the consituency to vote a different way. |
I think you are missing CB's point though. That same constiuent could be known as a pro-choice candidate, represent his people.....yet in his very private life be pro-life and take communion. He is able to separate HIS belief system from that of his job.......many physicians and pharmacologists do this on a regular basis, why not politicians? |
Exactly. And if a politician wants to be anti-choice, right wing, it should be because that's what he thinks is best public policy, and because that is how the Constitution should be interpreted. He should NOT be attempting to make laws about a woman's right to choose or gay marriage or anything else based on what the Bible (or Koran or whatever), tells him to do. |
I disagree. If he believes so deeply about the issue he already believes it is good public policy to be anti-abortion (or whatever the issue is). That belief is a part of him. But as long as the politician is not hiding his belief or how he would vote on an issue I expect him to vote in a manner consistent with his belief or lack of belief.
The church is made up of people who believe a certain way is right, so it makes sense for these people to push their viewpoint. Every interest group does so. Be it tobacco lobby, a church group, or the civil rights movement in the 60's.
In a very basic way there is no separation of church and state because a church-goer will bring his perspective into government and you will bring your anti-church bias into government. It's who people are.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/30/05 - 17:13 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | A politician's job is to represent the people, NOT to pass laws based on his religious beliefs. The Church is trying to exert influence on matters of the State and it is not right. Keep your religion out of my laws. |
Why does God or the mere mention of religion bother you so much? |
It doesn't.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
