'57 Notre Dame grad Phil Donohue: 9 reasons (other than abortion) to invite Obama

I saw this interview on Fox the other day and am so glad someone put it on YouTube.

phil donohue.jpgI can't tell you how perfectly I thought our side, Fr. Jonathan Morris and Martha MacCallum, argued against admittedly fallen liberal Catholic Phil Donohue. This was a grand debate where the liberal clock was cleaned.

Fr. Morris employed wonderful skill against Donohue, who threw 9 pieces of mud against the wall to try to move the discussion away from abortion and human embryo experimentation - including Catholic opposition to condoms, a Holocaust denying priest, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Catholic Church's history of anti-semitism, George Bush, the lack of priests and nuns, and dropping church attendance....

Fr. Morris consistently reoriented the debate by stating he would love to discuss these issues with Donohue another time, but the topic here was Obama's opposition to Life in context with being honored at Notre Dame.

Martha MacCallum employed another grand skill of bringing in an example from another realm: Would Donohue see the problem with a Jewish university inviting an anti-semitic speaker?

Donohue was indeed smart by trying to take the topic off of abortion, but it didn't work. Fr. Morris closed by saying many of the Church's woes would be solved by returning to strong teaching of Catholic ideals, exactly the opposite of Donohue's recommendation.

Again, this was a perfect debate. It is on YouTube in 2 parts. Pro-lifers commenting here could learn from it.


[HT: Susie A.]


Comments:

Faux Noise, the "I hope Obama and America fails" network.

Want to raise your IQ by 30 points? Go cold turkey off Faux, and the radio haters for 30 days

Posted by: Bystander at March 31, 2009 8:22 AM


I remember when Phil D. dedicated on of his entire shows about the dangers of illegalization of abortion. He told viewers to "look away if they had a weak stomach." Then they showed that picture of Gerry Santoro, the woman who had died from an illegal abortion. A collective gasp came from the audience. I think he's been pro-abortion for a long time!!

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 8:24 AM


Pro abortion Catholic = FAKE CATHOLIC. You cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 8:25 AM


Newsflash: Phil Donohue IS on Mars!!!!

First off, Martha was great! GREAT!!!

Secondly, Phil simply doesn't accept/realize the main argument in this entire interview that a core belief of the Catholic faith is respect for life - unborn life specifically in this case, and that ND invited and is honoring someone who is completely opposed and acting on that opposition to this Catholic belief.
He simply never addressed this issue but as Fr. stated brought up at least 10 (unrelated)issues (by my count).

I loved Donohue's statement about "archaic rules made by old men sitting benches"!!! At the Trent Council, no less!! My, I wonder what Jesus has to say about that one!

Best line: "don't honor somebody for somthing that's not honorable"
Touche!

Posted by: angel at March 31, 2009 8:33 AM


Martha's question re: context of Jews inviting an anti-semite is a great one - hadn't considered it.

Donohue just looks foolish and evasive. He's falsely assuming that the unborn are not human beings.

He brings up this idea of being humane, without understanding the basis of why we should be humane to begin with. What makes us worthy of humane treatment.

It's also rather amazing how much the Bush Derangement Syndrome bogey man is still being played.

Phil comes across as a cultural Catholic who doesn't really understand the principles behind Christ's teaching.

Father Jonathan Morris is an inspiration - I'd love to see him working with Fr. Pavone!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 31, 2009 8:38 AM


What Catholic church is Phil talking about? I've been Catholic my whole life and haven't seen anything but growth in the church.

Phil is about as Catholic as Obama is pro-life.

Posted by: Allison at March 31, 2009 8:41 AM


Phil is a strange fellow. His whole mission in life seems to be to blame all the problems of the world on men ONLY, and to vindicate women for anything and everything they do, including abortion. Very odd stance for a man, but he's made a lot of money with it. And I suspect that's the bottom line for him.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at March 31, 2009 8:42 AM


Doyle, he may be getting a lot of help from his pro-abortion wife.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 8:44 AM


No Doyle. You have it completely wrong. Phil blames the Catholic Church for all the worlds troubles, including his own.
The day he left TV was a blessing.
He is a prime example of many of his generation who sold their faith for....nothing. And he's responsible for destroying the faith of millions of Catholics.
You can't imagine how much faithful Catholics truly despise this man. God forgive us.

Posted by: angel at March 31, 2009 8:50 AM


angel, well put.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 8:55 AM


Shouldn't he be excommunicated? Does the church still do this? If not, why not?

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 8:59 AM


Very interesting.

Phil Donahue is a good example of a man that must have had some pretty poor faith formation. Unfortunately, he is not alone! He speaks for many "Catholics" that do not seem to embrace Christ and the Church in their hearts. He's not a bad man, just a man that has not had the richness in formation that many other people have. He, and many other very visible Catholics(Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Mario Cuomo, John Kerry, etc.) are missing the boat on such basic Church teachings and values and seems to need to go back to 1st grade religious formation. He just doesn't get it and doesn't seem to want to listen. Let's pray for him and all members of our Church that seem to have missed the boat. Changing hearts is possible--look at St. Paul!!!

His comments about pro-abortion Catholics and anullments, the Pope, etc. show just how far off the mark his formation has been.

God bless Father Jonathan and all of those faithful Catholics that are willing to speak out and defend Life and the Truth. The more public dialogue, the more the Truth is allowed to surface. Whatever ends up happening with the ND scandal, we have seen some fantastic fruit in the uproar for the defense of unborn. We've had some of our church leaders and lay people come alive in the defense of the unborn in ways that we haven't always seen.

God Bless!

Posted by: Jill Kerekes at March 31, 2009 9:06 AM


delilah: What?

Heather: to get back on track, Mr. D probably is excommunicated in some way. I'm not a canon lawyer but the fact that he's remarried after a divorce means he's separated from the church in any event. Likely the source of his bitterness, poor fellow.

Posted by: angel at March 31, 2009 9:07 AM


I didn't watch the video, but I want to know: who is Phil married to? I wasn't sure.......

Anyway, is there going to be anything about the 4th anniversary of the MURDER of Terri Schindler today? :(

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 31, 2009 9:10 AM


Jill, I don't think Phil received poor formation. He's a grad from 1957. In fact, he probably got a very good dose of catechism. Unfortunately, I think Catholics of his era did not understand the reasons behind the teachings of the Church. The post-Vatican church does a much better job (when they actually do it!) of explaining the teachings of the CC.
I think it's just rebellion, pure and simple.

Posted by: angel at March 31, 2009 9:10 AM


marlo thomas, Liz!
and as Heather states a vehement proabort!

Posted by: angel at March 31, 2009 9:11 AM


Delilah, I would consider it unwise to continue to bring up a topic that resulted in another person being banned. Unless there is an IP match, and moderators call for a person to use one name, leave it alone.

Posted by: Lauren at March 31, 2009 9:12 AM


delilah: nice try, but no seegar! :)

Posted by: angel at March 31, 2009 9:13 AM


Anyway, is there going to be anything about the 4th anniversary of the MURDER of Terri Schindler today? :(

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 31, 2009 9:10 AM

yes, we should remember this poor woman. I hope she is enjoying the beauty of heaven!

Posted by: angel at March 31, 2009 9:15 AM


Heather,

I didn't really see anything worth excommunication. That's a really severe offense which shouldn't be given lightly. Donahue dissents from a lot of Catholic doctrine and has a whole skeleton to pick with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, but I don't think he's heretical. Even pro-abortion politicians like Sebelius aren't being excommunicated; they're being ordered to not present themself for the Eucharist until they mend their ways. That's not excommunication, but pastoral obligation for the sake of the politician's soul.

I give Donahue credit for not receiving the Holy Eucharist due to his divorce and remarriage (let's face it, he can find more than a few parishes where the priest/extraordinary ministers would still administer it to him). I think there's an element of the Truth which really attracts him; however the modern culture has corrupted his mind (and perhaps his soul) to confuse what the disease, symptoms, and cure of the Catholic Church.

I don't think Donahue realizes how much he avoided the topic and the conversation. In his mind, the uproar over ND/Obama is inseparable from the Post-Vatican II laundry list of dissent from the Magisterium. He couldn't answer the question because he truly can't comprehend what's being asked.

Posted by: Michael at March 31, 2009 9:15 AM


You can see why Lauren used to moderate here with aplomb! Lauren, come back!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 31, 2009 9:17 AM


and I think it looks even worse when one (and her friends) stalk others on the internet, don't you?
I'd be afraid of asitis and her "friends" too, if I were this person.

Posted by: angel at March 31, 2009 9:18 AM


Delilah, do you have any evidence at all that anyone is lying? Unless you can show me that angel and patricia's IP's match, I don't want to hear about it anymore.

Posted by: Lauren at March 31, 2009 9:18 AM


Delilah, we ban commenters here only rarely. I can't recall ever banning 2 commenters in 2 days. But I'm ready.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 31, 2009 9:18 AM


Heather,

No I don't think there is anything in canon law that would allow for his excommunication. Excommunication is a LAST resort and is very, very serious. There are only 5 or so things that you can do to be automatically excommunicated which include participating in or having an abortion, physically attacking the Pope, breaking the seal of confession (for a priest), participating in a non-sanctioned ordaining of Holy Orders (maybe it's just for illegally consecrating Bishops), and a few others. The pope may also make a "special" excommunication if he sees fit like he did several years back with Archbishop Milingo, but he was causing international trouble and wasn't a local bum like Phil is.

Also Angel, as bad as divorce and remarriage is without an annulment, I don't think it's grounds for excommunication.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 9:19 AM


I don't think Donahue realizes how much he avoided the topic and the conversation. In his mind, the uproar over ND/Obama is inseparable from the Post-Vatican II laundry list of dissent from the Magisterium. He couldn't answer the question because he truly can't comprehend what's being asked.

Posted by: Michael at March 31, 2009 9:15 AM

yes, Michael, I do have to agree with you here. It seems to me, he just didn't comprehend the entire situation. He just didn't "get" the crux of Martha's position.

Posted by: angel at March 31, 2009 9:20 AM


Asitis was banned? I missed that...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 9:22 AM


Yeah, your probably right, Bobby. But, I WAS so hopeful.

I just hoped that as Mr. D got older he might return to his faith. I can see that this will not happen any time soon.

Maybe the roots of dissent were sown in ND fifty years ago. After all the situation in the CC did not just develop. It took years and started with "liberation theologians" in universities in the fifties and sixties.

Posted by: angel at March 31, 2009 9:24 AM


I did catch one slip-up by the host at the beginning- "[Obama] accepted the invitation to return to his home state this May..."

ND is in Indiana. Oops!

Posted by: Michael at March 31, 2009 9:28 AM


I also have to say that both Fr. Jonathan and Donahue are correct when they talk about the state of the Catholic Church in the United States. It is both thriving and withering.

In parishes and diocese where the whole faith is promoted, with perpetual adoration and frequent confession, the Church is growing by leaps and bounds, and there are plenty of vocations, both priestly and religious. (Yes, new orthodox religious orders are being formed and growing rapidly- look at the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia (aka the Nashville Dominicans) and the Dominican Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist (started ~1999 with 4, now up to almost 100 and growing rapidly).

On the other extreme are the dioceses and parishes run by virtual dissenters, who offer Confession by appointment only, apologize when the Pope or a Bishop proclaim a Catholic teaching, and view the faith solely throught the lens of modern ideas of social justice. (Social justice is indeed important, but there is no meaning when separated from the whole faith.) These areas of the Church are dying; those schools are closing; those religious congregations are dying out.

Most of the Church in the United States is somewhere in the middle, but that middle is shrinking (with growth on the orthodox side). Bishops and priests were unsure for about 20 years which way the Church was heading, and they therefore preached the faith but not too intensely less things change. Catholics were fed bite-sized tenets of the faith, but the challenge to understand and love more deeply was lacking. They are like the seed scattered in thin soil. The faith springs up fast, but can wither quickly under harsh conditions. Fortunately, some of these congregations (and they can be quite large) are being reinvigorated with young priests who have been properly trained and who love and want to spread the faith. These are the men who Fr. Jonathan is training, and they will be the future leaders of the Church.

Posted by: Michael at March 31, 2009 9:46 AM


Michael, Mr. D looked like he had swallowed a canary when Fr. Jonathan mentioned that he was 36 years old! I don't think he could quite understand how a young man would want to be a Catholic priest.

And I think the situation you mention is the same everywhere in both North America and Europe.

Posted by: angel at March 31, 2009 9:52 AM


Heather 8:24am

Phil Donahue is a staunch pro-abort. The other night, he was also whining about controlling capitalism to Sean Hannity though I seriously doubt he or his actess wife, Marlo Thomas, ever lived in abject poverty because of capitalism. Did anyone tell either of them how much money they could make in their chosen professions? How about capping the outrageous salaries of some of these Obama supporting limousine liberals in Hollywood?

Where Donahue is concerned, you always have to consider the source.

Posted by: Mary at March 31, 2009 10:07 AM


When I congratulated Marlo, she laughed. “My brother and I used to say to our wonderful dad, Danny Thomas, who founded St. Jude’s – ‘Daddy, why couldn’t you have left us a booming, gambling casino instead of a children’s hospital to worry about?’”

Send your dollar to St. Jude’s this Christmas!


This summer’s PGA Tour golf tournament in Memphis, formerly known as the Stanford St. Jude Classic, has been renamed in the wake of an extensive federal investigation of former title sponsor Stanford Financial Group.?Reflecting the troubles surrounding Stanford, the tournament – scheduled for June 8-14 at Southwind – has dropped the name of Stanford and is now the St. Jude Classic.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last month described the Stanford family of companies as facilitating a massive investment fraud costing billions for investors.?The 52-year-old golf tournament has raised almost $22 million for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital since 1970, including $2.5 million in 2008.

Interesting, money laundering through a hospital. Just like casinos.

St. Jude, patron saint of lost causes.


Posted by: yllas at March 31, 2009 10:13 AM


Mary, Good afternoon. I just knew it. I was quite young, but I remember that episode of Donahue like it was yesterday. I believe he also had another woman on there who claimed that she performed her own abortion. It was called menstrual extraction.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 10:14 AM


And Pro-abort, Jennifer Aniston is St.Judes new spokeswoman. How appropriate.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 10:16 AM


D: "she wasn't the only one who saw through the ruse angel"

Its a conspiracy! Where is bethany with her tin foil hat???

Asitis was banned for a lot of reasons. She wont even be noticed as gone by the majority of us. Another worthless troll off the boards.

The funniest part to me is that Angel may even be Patricia and TSTL. Who cares? She may be too embaressed to admit to it for whatever reason, but its not as if she is posting as one or the other repeatedly. The "issue" is entirely up to the mods. I dont see why you are so obsessed over something so trivial.

Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 10:17 AM


Thats it Phil Donohue, talk about anything except abortion...distract, avoid...

Posted by: Jasper at March 31, 2009 10:20 AM


yllas, 10;13am

A very interesting and informative post. Thank you.


Posted by: Mary at March 31, 2009 10:20 AM


Ok, Can someone please give me a rundown on the basic rules of the Cathlic church? I'm not Cathlic and would just like to know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable when it comes to claiming you are Cathlic. I heard no birth control, drinking, smoking, etc but what other rules do they have to remain part of the congregation?

Posted by: AK Krystal at March 31, 2009 10:23 AM


Heather,

Good morning. I well remember that show and the picture of Geri Santoro. Donahue has always irritated me no end.
One time he gave Jerry Falwell flack over his religious beliefs. Hey Phil, ever hear of something called Freedom of Religion?

Posted by: Mary at March 31, 2009 10:25 AM


Jasper 10:20am

Like I said, always consider the source.

Posted by: Mary at March 31, 2009 10:26 AM


Mary, LOL! I have a great memory. However, I had to try to recall if it was actually Donahue or Jerry Springer. LOL!

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 10:30 AM


Fred: "Hooray for Asitis"

Ted: *higher voice* "She was a pretty great ol gal!"

Sally *british accent* "Righty O chaps! Asitis is quite the lady!"

Lucretia *sultry voice* "Lets drink a round to Asitis!"

Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 10:30 AM


Mary, I guess it's only freedom of religion if you see it Phil's way.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 10:31 AM


Lauren,

I can't understand this issue over monikers. Who the devil cares??

Life has taught me a sure fire way to make a fool of yourself that people making these accusations should learn.

1. Shoot off your mouth, then

2. Get your facts

Posted by: Mary at March 31, 2009 10:33 AM


Hey AK Krystal.

"Can someone please give me a rundown on the basic rules of the Cathlic church? I'm not Cathlic and would just like to know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable when it comes to claiming you are Cathlic. I heard no birth control, drinking, smoking, etc but what other rules do they have to remain part of the congregation?"

I think I actually see two question here; 1) what makes someone a Catholic and 2) what does one have to do to be a "good" Catholic, or Catholic in good standing.

There are actually two answers to the first question. One is that anyone who is validly baptized (with water, sprinkled or immersed where someone says the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) we consider to to technically be a member of the body of Christ; that is, the Church. For as St Paul says, there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." So even those non-Catholics who have been baptized we consider to be members of the body of Christ, but not in full communion with the Church and as such, not bound by canonical law nor technically bound to Catholic teaching (though in another sense, we do believe that the whole world is bound to Catholic teaching because we believe we have been given the authority to speak with the authority of Jesus).

But more to what you're asking. You are correct that artificial contraception in forbidden, but smoking and drinking are not. Abusing them is, but we do allow drinking, smoking, and gambling all in moderation. Besides those specifics (and we can discuss other specifics if you have questions), I would say that the minimum requirement to be a good Catholic is to follow the precepts of the Church. They are:

I. To attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, and resting from servile works.

II. To observe the days of abstinence and fasting.

III. To confess our sins to a priest, at least once a year.

IV. To receive Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist at least once a year during Easter Season.

V. To contribute to the support of the Church.

VI. To obey the laws of the Church concerning Matrimony.

VII. To participate in the Church's mission of Evangelization of Souls.(Missionary Spirit of the Church

Part of the precepts of the Church imply an attempt to conform one's beliefs to that of teh Church and live it, so things like believing birth control is wrong as well as not using it are covered in the precepts. Any other questions? God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 10:36 AM


Im just curious Tommy. How did Asitis ever open your eyes to anything?

Also, where is the proof that Angel is Patricia or TSTL?

Also one more, why are you pro-life exactly?

Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 10:38 AM


Tommy,

I'm speaking as someone who liked asitis and still do. Please tell me what proof you have of lying. I mean solid proof, something you can show that settles the argument once and for all.
I must point out that asitis made the mistake of assuming I ran a blog of my own, which in fact I do not. She was quite adamant and I was finally able to convince her I didn't.
People can be mistaken and its not issue to me either way, I'm just pointing out that assumptions can easily be made.

Posted by: Mary at March 31, 2009 10:38 AM


She also assumed that I disliked her for reasons outside of the ones I supplier her. She was quick to make flawed assumptions, which is part of why she was banned.

Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 10:42 AM


AK Krystal,

Unfortunately, there's no easy laundry list for the Catholic faith. Catholicism, when lived to its ideal, is a whole entire way of orienting your life to the service of God. However, we are sinners, and therefore do have questions and need guidance regarding the can-dos and cannot-dos. The Catholic Church has summarized these obligations in its Catechism of the Catholic Church. These believes are derived from the words of Scripture, divine revelation, Church tradition, and natural law philosophy.

The fundamental basics are belief in the Apostles' Creed (http://www.chastitysf.com/creed.htm) for both Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed. I know that this isn't really what you're asking, but there is no small checklist for Catholics.

As for a couple of items in your list, abortion and birth control are no-nos (interference in the proper relations between man and woman united fully in holy matrimony), alcohol in moderation is fine (hello Irish!), and smoking is more or less on the same level as alcohol. There are no dues or contributions to belong to a parish, and you are free to worship at any Catholic Church in the world.

I wish I had a better answer for you, but it's a little hard to put into a box. Perhaps Bobby can do better (assuming he hasn't already answered your questions while I'm typing this). Also, if there are any other specifics you want to know about, I'll be happy to try to explain the Catholic position.

Posted by: Michael at March 31, 2009 10:42 AM


"Jennifer Anniston the new spokesman for St. Judes" ?????????

Someone tell me this isn't true.
Please.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2009 10:48 AM


God love you, Bobby, I knew you would come through. The precepts of the Church completely escaped me as I was writing my reply.

Krystal, use what little in my reply is still salvageable, but rely mainly on Bobby's post. He da man.

Posted by: Michael at March 31, 2009 10:48 AM


My wife sometimes posts as me. Maybe we are the same person! Heck, my wife posted as Jill one time. It must be a conspiracy! We are all the same person!

Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 10:48 AM


Mike, Oh I wish I could, but she's hugging a little cancer stricken girl in their new comercial.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 10:53 AM


Tommy 10:44am

You offer no solid proof. You can believe what you want, asitis can believe what she wants, and I'll believe what I want. Without solid proof it won't get much beyond that and its silly to argue without solid evidence.

Tommy, take the life lesson I offered in my 10:33am post. Its one I had to learn the hard way many times in my life!

Posted by: Mary at March 31, 2009 10:53 AM


Michael & Bobby,
Thanks so much for helping me understand. My grandparents are fun Scotland and Ireland and were very devoted Cathlics.
I guess I was batised as a baby but I wouldn't remember that.
Since I hear a lot lately about 'excommunication', what makes the church do this to someone and who has the authority to do this?

I consider myself a beliver but I do not attend church at the moment. Kind of still finding myself spirtully you can say.

why are priests not allowed to marry/have sex?

Ok and finally, does the church frown apon certain sexual acts between a husband a wife?

Posted by: AK Krystal at March 31, 2009 10:53 AM


No Michael, what you said is great. Like you said, it isn't "one list and then I'm good" kind of thing. And the reason there isn't (and I know this isn't what Krystal is saying AT ALL) is because we don't operate under the attitude of "what is the bare minimum I need to do?" (again, I know this isn't anything like what you had in mind, Krystal). It's similar to the sex question "how far is too far?" Well, that really is the wrong question. It isn't "how close to Hell can I get without being there?" rather it's "how close to God can I get? How can I love him even more?" It is legitimate to want to know if one is doing enough, hence the minimum that needs to be done, but it isn't the mindset that the Church puts herself in, so it is a tricky question to answer. God love you too.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 10:55 AM


Tommy: "shuttin my damn mouth Oliver. Doesn't change the truth though."

Youre not too good at shutting your mouth are you? The truth is not ascertainable here. Besides, Asitis was banned for being a troll. She trolled every thread and purposefully misinterpreted everyone's posts. She deserved to be banned a long long time ago.

Honestly, I think youre full of sh*t. You never explained what makes you pro-life or what makes you appreciate Asitis. She is worthless to this discussion and only attempted to distrupt, as evidenced by her baseless accusations against angel.

Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 10:59 AM


bobby,
I'm only asking these questions to educate myself since I have no cathlic friends to help in this department and naturally I'm a very curious person.
Sometimes the weirdest questions get into my head and I just need answers.
With the sex question the only reason I ask is because I went to one of those in home parties for all women that sold adult bedroom accessories and a cathlic woman was the consultant.
I didn't know how the cathlic church felt about those types of things.

Posted by: AK Krystal at March 31, 2009 11:00 AM


She was banned because she refused to stop harrassing Angel even after requests from moderators to stop. Honestly, thats one of the few things you can get fired for at pretty much any job. Failure to follow instruction. She failed to stop when the mods asked her to, and so she was banned. It wasnt like she had done this once or twice. This was a continuing problem and it just finally came to a head.

Trust me in that I am not biased. I dont even think SoMG should have been banned for insulting Jill. SoMG was pretty smart and actually debated the issues. I would like to see him unbanned honestly. Asitis? She deserved to go and good riddance.

Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 11:12 AM


OK.

"Since I hear a lot lately about 'excommunication', what makes the church do this to someone and who has the authority to do this?"

As I mentioned in a previous post, it is a sort of "last resort." If you read Galatians 1, Paul issues an anathema (excommunication) to those who preach another gospel. The reason the Church issues an excommunication is to show the severity of what an individual has done. For example, participating in an abortion is automatic excommunication under canon law. There is so much confusion about the morality of abortion and it is such a heinous act, that the Church, in order to show the gravity of that act, has stated that you will be automatically excommunicated if you participate in one. There are a few other things that result in automatic excommunication as well.

The pope himself also has the authority to excommunicate on a case-by-case basis, although this is rare (though it did happen a few years ago to Archbishop Milingo... what a bum). WHAT excommunication is is a cutting off from the sacraments of teh church. It does NOT mean you are going to hell, it does NOT mean you are out forever. It means you may not recieve any sacraments of the Church until you "straighten things out." Normally, one must go directly to Rome to be "un" excommunicated, but there are special dispensations (at least in the US) for some priests and bishops to "un" excommunicate someone who has been excommunicated because of an abortion. That is a special case.

"why are priests not allowed to marry/have sex?"

This is actually a disciple, not a doctrine, of teh Church. In fact, priests in teh East may get married, and you will even find some priests here in the US who are married because they are converts from Anglican priesthood. Technically, it is possible that all priests could someday be allowed to marry. If so, I'm the first one in seminary, but don't hold you breath for that one! :) Anyway, we believe that the priest is married to teh Church and that his WHOLE existence is to be at the service of Christs' bride the Church. Hence, having a family would be too much. It isn't because having a family or being married is bad; built because it's so good. The priest gives up something SO GOOD for the sake of an even greater good; taht of devoting his whole life and being to teh service of the Church. Some biblical verses may be pertinent. From Matthew 19

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

There is also a lot in teh whole chapter of 1 Cor 7, but a few passages that stick out:

32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

"does the church frown apon certain sexual acts between a husband a wife? "

Yes. This is a whole, huge realm that we could get into, but as we noted above, any contraceptive act is "frowned" upon. The Church believes that the sexual act is holy, and that using it for a common purpose or matter-of-factly is sacralidge. The theology of the marital act is that the act has a two-fold nature; a unitive aspect and a procreative aspect. If one separates either of these two aspects from teh marital act, they are violating something that is holy and hence committing a grave sin. Thus any sexual action taken between man and wife which is not ordered towards procreation nor towards the union of teh spouses can not be accepted. "This is a hard saying; who can accept it?"

So that is very briefly a few answers to your questions. Would love to expound more or go into more detail about specifics as well as why if you wish. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 11:16 AM


The moderators have the proof. But there were enough gaffs and bizarre explanations to convince me asitis had it pegged. And if angel and toostunned to laugh aren't patricia like she said then patricia has some clones and she don't like cloning.
Posted by: Tommy at March 31, 2009 10:44 AM
*****************************************

Interesting. So, "Tommy" how would you know any of this? "Delilah," how about you? You both seem to have *awfully* first hand knowledge about all of this.

Mods...do I need to spell it out?

Posted by: Kel at March 31, 2009 11:21 AM


", I'm only asking these questions to educate myself since I have no cathlic friends to help in this department and naturally I'm a very curious person."

Oh Krystal, please please please ask ALL the sexual questions you have! That is what I do. I study the Church's sexual teachings like crazy because I know this is the biggest stumbling black for so many people. Anything at all.

"With the sex question the only reason I ask is because I went to one of those in home parties for all women that sold adult bedroom accessories and a cathlic woman was the consultant."

So here, sexual toys are not necessarily wrong in the eyes of the Church. In order to access their morality in the eyes of the Church properly, we must consider them in light of the main teachings on the conjugal act that I outlined above. The main thrust of it is that the unitive and procreative aspects of teh marital act are not thwarted. So using certain "tools" to help stimulate each other and enjoy teh act more are not wrong as long as the act is still ordered towards procreation AND as long as the pleasure that one receives from these tools are not ENDS in and of themselves. There is nothing wrong with pleasure in sex, but pleasure is not the purpose, the reason in-and-of-itself for the sexual act. As long as that is kept in sight, such things may be morally permissible.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 11:23 AM


Thank you bobby, that pretty much answered my questions!
I hope no one took any offence to what I was asking. i just wanted to clarify some things in my mind about cathlics.

Posted by: AK Krystal at March 31, 2009 11:25 AM


Ok Bobby, if sex is first and formost primarily used for procreation, what about those couples who are done having children but still want to enjoy sex in the marriage?
Is this frowned apon since their intent is for pleasure and not to make a baby?

Posted by: AK Krystal at March 31, 2009 11:31 AM


I was also sad that Laura was banned back in the day. She wasn't that bad.

Posted by: PiP at March 31, 2009 11:32 AM


Hi, Krystal,

Bobby and I definitely welcome questions like yours. As far as excommunication, Bobby listed a few of the automatic ways in his 9:19am post on this thread. It's meaning is that someone has chosen to remove himself/herself spiritually from communion with the Catholic Church through actions. A decree of excommunication can only be issued by the Pope, bishop or head of religious order. However, this decree is a confirmation of the separation, not the act of separation.

Priestly celibacy is based on both tradition and practical grounds. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm has a lot of the history. The spouse of the priest is really the Church, and on a small scale, the individual parish or ministry to which he is assigned. That is why Catholics speak of vocations. A priest isn't a job, it is a full-time life, just as being a husband or wife is a full-time life.

From a practical standpoint, celibacy is needed for the demands of a church and the demands of a family are at odds with each other. I was the son of a former Episcopal priest. We had vacations cancelled, holiday dinners interrupted, and no weekend get-aways. My father had meetings 2-3 evenings per week, and this was at a small church. Most priests have demands on their time from morning to evening every day of the week. Priests also have to be open to moving where needed in a diocese, and that is complicated when there are family members to account for. If lifting of priestly celibacy were to occur, either their family would be neglected or the needs of the congregation would be neglected. (There are special provisions for a small category of married priests who converted from the Episcopal priesthood, but we are talking about the general rule here).

I'll address marital aids in another post, if Bobby hasn't already covered that issue (as well as this one).

Posted by: Michael at March 31, 2009 11:36 AM


Hi Kel,
Got your message about asitis/Delilah/Tommy.
Thanks. :)

Posted by: Carla at March 31, 2009 11:41 AM


Krystal,

Part of the problem with deciding "that's it, I'm done with kids" is that you are closing yourself to God's will. Part of the Lord's Prayer is "Thy will be done", but this is very hard for many people to accept. We all would rather it say, "Thy will be done, as long as it conforms to mine."

You do not have to be actively trying to procreate through sexual acts. The Church accepts NFP as an acceptable method for couples who desire to delay or avoid pregnancy for serious reasons. At its roots, NFP simply provides a couple with insight regarding the natural fertile and infertile periods of a woman's God-given cycle. The couple can choose to abstain or engage in relations during a fertile time. If they do, they should be open to God giving them another child. If they don't think it is a good decision at this time, they practice self-control and abstain. It's that simple, and that hard. A couple who make love only in infertile times are expressing the unitative aspects of intercourse, but they are still open to God's will. Contraception closes that openness to God's will.

Posted by: Michael at March 31, 2009 11:47 AM


Carla,

Do you mind me asking if it checked out? I thought the same.

Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 11:51 AM


"Ok Bobby, if sex is first and formost primarily used for procreation, what about those couples who are done having children but still want to enjoy sex in the marriage? Is this frowned apon since their intent is for pleasure and not to make a baby?"

Right, good question. NOw it depends on what you mean by "done." If the woman goes through menopause and no longer has any eggs, or if for whatever reason a couple can;t conceive a child, I'll discuss that below. But usually when people say "done" with regard to children in this context, it means they have had all teh children that they want or maybe can afford or whatever. The first thing I would say to that is that children are not a commodity to be had at one's convenience; that is, a child is a gift from God, which we have no right to. It is only through his love and willingness to allow us to share in his divine Fatherhood that we are given this great pro-CREATIVE gift with him. So usually when people say this (again, not accusing you of thinking this way), they have the wrong outlook, the wrong attitude about what a child is and why we are given this awesome power to create a brand new life with our Lord.

Now on the other hand, we can not simply throw caution to the wind and do things beyond our ability and means. As much as it pains me to say this, I don't think we are all able to be the Duggars (God love them). So what the Catholic Church teaches is that God, in his divine wisdom, created a very simple, easy to understand rhythm within the woman's body which gives easily verifiable signs to show when she is ovulating. This is the idea of NFP or natural family planning. That is, when one understands some simple science, it can be predicted within extremely high level of accuracy when the woman is ovulating, and if there are good reasons for not wanting another child at this time, the couple may abstain from sexual relations. NFP is really just a fancy form of abstinence. It's basically "sexual dieting" whereas contraception is "sexual bulimia." With dieting and NFP, you work with the natural rhythms of the body and abstain from certain things. Just like not eating a huge cake, you must show self restraint and resist temptation in order to achieve your goals. Contrast this with contraception and bulimia. With bulimia, you want the PLEASURE of food BUT without the results. So, you enjoy the pleasure of that cake, but purge it later by vomiting it up. And with contraception, you enjoy teh pleasure of sex, but you take it upon yourself to thwart the very purpose of teh sexual act by directly rendering it sterile.

So that is a small diatribe on NFP vs. contraception and how, given grave reasons, a Catholic couple may partake of NFP in order to hold off on pregnancy.

So now suppose the couple is naturally infertile. Well the answer is still no, and the reason is because they have not taken it upon themselves to thwart the natural procreative power that they have; it simply "dies out" naturally. Now this seems like splitting hairs. We get the same result, but go about it by totally different means. But the means that one takes in a certain action are very important. I often say this on this blog but we are not utilitarians (I know you're not saying we are). The ends are not the only thing taht we look at when considering the morality of an action. So the fact is that for any reason if our bodies naturally do not have procreative power, that is OK and does not hinder one's engaging in the conjugal act because ultimately, they are not taking the power of procreation into their own hands.

Remember, there is also the unitive aspect, which is often overlooked in this debate. Sex is also to unite with the spouse, to grow closer and more intimate with them because you are sharing each other in such an intimate and personal way. Even when the natural ability to conceive is lost, couples should still be able to unite through the marital act.

Wow, I really yap it up...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 11:53 AM


Bobby, I can only gather from your post that abortion excommunicates you automatically from the church, but committing a grizzly axe murder is not. Am I wrong? If I'm not, I don't get it.

Posted by: PiP at March 31, 2009 11:56 AM


RE: Phil threw 9 pieces of mud. I can't hear the video, but I'm reading some of the things he has to say about the church. Why is he still in the church? He sounds fed up with it.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 11:58 AM


Bobby, can you explain where Phil would get the anti-semitism? Also, who was the priest who didn't believe the haulocaust? Just asking, because this is the first I've heard of it.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 12:07 PM


"Bobby, I can only gather from your post that abortion excommunicates you automatically from the church, but committing a grizzly axe murder is not. Am I wrong? If I'm not, I don't get it."

Yes, that is correct. It isn't because an ax murder is less bad then abortion, but because of the confusion regarding abortion and teh fact that it is SO pervasive in our culture. You don't see too many ax murders any more, and those who engage in them probably LOOK like ax murderers and are most likely nuts and can't be reasoned with. This is not the case with abortion. People who engage in abortion are all around us, very intelligent people, very nice people, reasonable people etc. It is so much a part of our world and way of life unlike any other kind of grave crime that to it is attached the penalty of excommunication to show how severe it is and how it isn't just a "simple procedure" that is so matter-of-fact as many people see it nowadays.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 12:08 PM


Can I ask how that shows love and compassion to those that regret their abortions and need help?

Or maybe I do not understand excommunication?

Totally asking honestly, Bobby. You probably know that though. :)

Posted by: Carla at March 31, 2009 12:22 PM


Heather,

About anti-semitism, it's somewhat of a Catholic urban legend, these kinds of things that people just throw out there and everyone is afraid to deny it. Mr D just wanted a cheap shot. He may be referring to one of the prayers in the 1962 missal that was said on good Friday where we pray for the "perfidious Jews", but if that's all he's got, it's pretty weak becuase it clearly refers to Jews which are perfideous, not saying that ALL Jews are perfideous. Otherwise, it would be redundant.

The thing about the haulocaust denier is that back in January, the Pope lifted the excommunication of 4 bishops from teh schismatic group SSPX (Society of St Pius X) who were invalidly ordained back in teh late 80s. It turns out that one of teh bishops, Richard Williamson, said that only 300000 or so were killed during the haulocaust and a couple other idiotic things. This interview actually came out the day the excommuncaition was lifted so it was really bad timing, and the media LOVED it. They jumped all over the pope and bashed him left and right and still are for "embracing a halocaust denier." Of course, they wouldn't have given a rip about the SSPX or any of this had Bishop Williamson not made those remarks. Anyway, the lifting of excommunication just means that they are inviting the bishops to be part of the Church again, to try and heal things. It says they are not heretics. It's the first step. The fact that he is a holocaust denier means he's a liar, not a heretic. I think Williamson also recently issed an apology

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 12:24 PM


Well, of course you can be Catholic and pro-choice. Pro-choice people vehemently deny that they are pro-abortion; they're merely pro-choice. This tidy euphemism has brainwashed millions.

Posted by: Luana at March 31, 2009 12:24 PM


Oliver,
It checked out.

Posted by: Carla at March 31, 2009 12:24 PM


Heather, here you go. Google any of the names for more info:

The Vatican stirred a diplomatic maelstrom yesterday when it announced that it had lifted the excommunication of four rebel bishops, including the British Holocaust-denier Richard Williamson.

The decree repealing the 20-year-old Vatican punishment, imposed after the traditionalist French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated the four as bishops in defiance of the Pope's authority, was signed on Wednesday by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops. This coincided with the broadcast on Swedish state television of an interview with Mr Williamson in which the breakaway bishop denied the Holocaust.

"I believe there were no gas chambers... I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps but none of them by gas chambers," he told SVT television in an interview that was recorded in Germany last November. "There was not one Jew killed by the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies!"

Posted by: Hal at March 31, 2009 12:24 PM


Carla: "Oliver,
It checked out."

Wow. Thats actually kind of scary. What a nutjob. Sheesh!

Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 12:27 PM


Hal, thanks for the reply.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 12:29 PM


"I believe there were no gas chambers... I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps but none of them by gas chambers," he told SVT television in an interview that was recorded in Germany last November. "There was not one Jew killed by the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies!"

Ugh. That's so disgusting. Would the excommunication have been lifted if the bishops were strongly pro-choice? That is my question.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 31, 2009 12:32 PM


Please not: Anonymous was not me:|

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 12:36 PM


sorry, Anon was me.

Posted by: PiP at March 31, 2009 12:36 PM


"Would the excommunication have been lifted if the bishops were strongly pro-choice? That is my question. "

Who knows? Remember, as Hal's article stated, the broadcast where he said those remarks came out on the same day the excommunication was lifted, so it was not public knowledge taht he held those beliefs. Admittedly, it was poor timing and poor investigation of the Bishops on someone's part, but that's that.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 12:37 PM


*oops* meant not

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 12:37 PM


NOTE..

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 12:38 PM


Bobby, lifting the Williamson excommunication meant that he and the vatican could formally restore dialogue, right? As I understand it, it did NOT restore Williamson to good standing in the Church. It meant that things could formally proceed to determine what actions (such as renunciation of former remarks) Williamson would need to take as a part of making his way back to the church. The PR on this was terrible!

Posted by: Fed Up at March 31, 2009 12:38 PM


In other words, I've got to believe that if Bishop Williamsons position on the holocaust was known at the time, teh excommunication on him would not have been lifted until he recanted or something like that. That's just speculation though.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 12:40 PM


Bobby, fair enough..

Posted by: PiP at March 31, 2009 12:41 PM


Right FedUp. As I stated below, it's the "first step" towards healing. I'm no expert on this stuff, but I think that's the way to think about it. First step to begin dialogue.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 12:43 PM


Heather, here's an article for you. There's more to the story than the holocaust denial. This explains it better than I can.

http://rationabileobsequium.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-precisely-has-pope-done.html

Posted by: Fed Up at March 31, 2009 12:59 PM


Here's an update, Bobby is right (as usual)

***

Benedict affirmed the Catholic Church was 'profoundly and irrevocably committed to reject all anti-Semitism.'

'The hatred and contempt for men, women and children that was manifested in the Shoah was a crime against God and against humanity,' Benedict said, using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.
Bishop Richard Williamson

Bishop Richard Williamson has been welcomed back into the Catholic Church by Pope Benedict XVI

'This should be clear to everyone, especially to those standing in the tradition of the Holy Scriptures.

'It is beyond question that any denial or minimization of this terrible crime is intolerable and altogether unacceptable,' he said during the meeting in the Vatican's Apostolic Palace.

Jewish leaders applauded his comments, saying the crisis with the church that had been sparked by Bishop Richard Williamson's comments was over.

In an interview with Swedish state TV broadcast January 21, Williamson denied that any Jews were gassed during World War II.

He said only about 200,000 to 300,000 Jews were killed, but none of them gassed.

The Vatican said Benedict did not know of Williamson's views when he agreed to lift the excommunication, and stressed that it did not in any way share Williamson's views.

But confronted with mounting Jewish outrage, the Vatican demanded Williamson recant before he would be fully admitted as a bishop into the church.

Williamson has apologised for causing distress to the pope, but has not recanted.

He said he would correct himself if he is satisfied by the evidence, but insisted in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel that examining it 'will take time.'

He also announced he had purchased a book on Auschwitz, but would not be visiting the site of the infamous concentration camp.

Posted by: Hal at March 31, 2009 1:09 PM


As a personal side note to all of this, I have never ever EVER understood why there is a strong feeling on anti-semitism amongst some Catholics. OK, I mean, I realize that it is because "the Jews killed Jesus" but that is just complete and utter nonsense. Anyone who has any grasp on theology knows that it is all of us, all our sins that "killed Jesus." Sure, some of those who perpetrated the actual killing of Jesus were Jewish, some were Roman, but what ion the world? I don't see how that means anything. Furthermore, I think any Catholic (and any non-Catholic Christian) should have the utmost respect for the Jews because we believe that the Jews are where our religion comes from; that is, if I was born before the year 1, I would be Jewish. The only difference between a Jew today and a Christian is that the Christian believes that the person of Jesus of Nazareth is the Jewish Messiah, the one whom the Jews have been waiting for. But, I love Judaism. It is where I as a Christian come from; it is my roots.

So something that makes no sense to me ESPECIALLY in light of where Christianity came from is for a Christian to hate or treat improperly a Jew.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 31, 2009 1:22 PM


Bystander: "Faux Noise, the 'I hope Obama and America fails' network. Want to raise your IQ by 30 points? Go cold turkey off Faux, and the radio haters for 30 days..."

Just curious, Bystander: what do you watch? MSDNC?

Posted by: bmmg39 at March 31, 2009 1:29 PM


bobby, thanks again for answering my question.
Now, I have my tubes tied because my husband and I didn't have the desire to raise anymore children.
Would this be against the church?

Posted by: AK Krystal at March 31, 2009 1:35 PM


My, oh my. Donahue got his clock cleaned out! And it was done with charity, too.

:-D

Posted by: Marc at March 31, 2009 1:39 PM


Krystal,

Yes and no. Though you are baptized, you are not a practicing Catholic and it doesn't sound like you ever received any of the other sacraments. Therefore, you are not bound by the precepts of the Catholic Church. Now if you were to want to enter the Church through RCIA, what would they ask? Well, the Catholic Church is full of people who have histories and who have done many things to themselves and others. She welcomes everyone as they are, but desires that they strive to perfect themselves.

You would not be asked, I believe, to try to go through a reversal. Some people opt to for themselves, to try to amend for past actions, but I have never heard of that being obligatory. At most, you might be asked to consider if a reversal would be helpful to your journey of faith (even this step would probably be extraordinary, and only after you had been through RCIA).

If your question is whether or not tubal ligations are morally licit in the Catholic Church, the answer is no, because it artificially shortens the woman's reproductive life for the direct purpose of doing so. A hysterectomy, on the other hand, because its primary intent is not to prevent conception but to treat a medical condition, is morally licit. The end matters, but the means are just as important.

I hope this helps.

Posted by: Michael at March 31, 2009 1:52 PM


Faux Noise, the "I hope Obama and America fails" network.

Want to raise your IQ by 30 points? Go cold turkey off Faux, and the radio haters for 30 days
Posted by: Bystander at March 31, 2009 8:22 AM

No one said they wanted America to fail. Wanting BO to fail policies to fail is a different matter.

And are you expecting us to believe Liberals didnt want President Bush to fail?

Of course they wanted him to fail!

But an UNELECTED PERSON like Rush Limbaugh cant say he wants BO to fail.

And while Fox news is definitely a conservative channel for the most part, MSNBC and CNN are about as liberal as it gets.

Posted by: Joanne at March 31, 2009 2:01 PM


This has done more to divide Catholics than just about anything I’ve seen in recent times."

~ President of the Catholic League, Bill Donahue, commenting on Notre Dame’s decision to invite Barack Obama as commencement speaker and to award him an honorary doctoral degree in law. As quoted by: CNS News, Mar 24.

-------------------------------------------------------

Iniviting PBHO to speak at Notre Dame and honoring him with a fake law degree is like feeding the aligator in hope that he will eat you
last.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at March 31, 2009 3:01 PM


Phil reminds me of so many who never cared to pay too much attention to those classes that informed him of his faith. I remember a number of his early programs where he "pontificated" to the ignorant just what the Church taught and usually got it wrong....esp. the numerous times he misspoke re: the Immaculate Conception. I used to scream at the TV - "what a dope". Does he even keep the general 3rd commandment these days? And if not, then get to confession and do your attempt at rationalizing there before spewing forth all the misinformation to the poor sheeples he so likes to impress. Otherwise, any of his current receptions of the Eucharist are sacreligious. To promote the killing of God's creation isn't some little side matter to be "dialogued". He might as well hand out whips to his audience so they may scourge Christ all over again.

Posted by: KC at March 31, 2009 3:16 PM


Wow, mods, that was FAST.

Posted by: Fed Up at March 31, 2009 3:58 PM


Can anyone answer my questions from 12:22pm?

Posted by: Carla at March 31, 2009 4:03 PM


Carla, you talking about a woman having an abortion and being excommunated because of it?

Posted by: Fed Up at March 31, 2009 4:06 PM


Carla, I'm obviously not Catholic, but I think that in order to be excommunicated, you'd have to first know that the action you were committing was a sin at the time you committed it. And that it was an excommunicable sin, probably. And you must willingly choose to do it anyway. I don't think the point of excommunicating people is to be like, "Mwahahaha, I bet you're sorry you did that now, huh? I think it's more to prevent people from doing something, so the state of mind and the degree to which the person is aware of the effects of their actions probably factor in a lot.

Secondly, I don't think that excommunication is necessarily permanent. I think it's just kind of, like, you did something so bad that you can't just go to confession and start over again. But again, I think that even that only applies if you knew at the time of the abortion that it was something that would get you excommunicated, and you did it anyway.

I'm not sure the Church retroactively excommunicates people. I mean, like, if someone wasn't Catholic when they had an abortion, and then they became Catholic, I don't think they'd be immediately excommunicated. I think probably the abortion would come up when they were in the process of becoming Catholic, and would be addressed in whatever way necessary at that point.

Sometimes it seems like a lot of rules to me. But at least they make more sense than, say, the rules in tennis, which always earned me a mediocre grade during that unit in gym class.

Posted by: Alexandra at March 31, 2009 4:20 PM


Carla, that's another good question. Just about everyone takes birth control. I never saw what was so wrong with it myself, but now I see what everyone was saying. Some lady once told me that her sister was excommunicated from the CC for taking birth control. Don't know how true it is, but that's what she said. I always thought in reverse. Birth control was okay.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 4:21 PM


I used to take birth control.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 4:23 PM


Planned Barrenhood told me that Depo Provera would stop my periods d/t supressed ovulation. Now I see what it really does.

Posted by: Heather at March 31, 2009 4:25 PM


Also, Carla, I think that the Church's goal is to help people as much as possible. So I find it hard to believe that they would permanently deny communion to a woman who'd had an abortion. I don't know the specifics but they just un-excommunicated that bishop guy, so clearly it can be done.

I think that it's more like...the Church gets some help from the rest of society on the subject of basically all other kinds of murder. Or rape. Or even stealing. These things are illegal so you can't just commit them and then say you're sorry and have it all be okay. You go to jail. You have to look into the eyes of the parents of the person you killed at your trial; or you have to see/hear the rape kit evidence and see how thoroughly you harmed another human being. Maybe these things aren't always in the minds of murderers and rapists -- probably not; if they were, we'd probably have even fewer murderers and rapists and thieves. But there are reminders that confession is not enough to erase the pain you cause by these actions, is my point .

There are very few such reminders with abortion. You don't see the person you hurt. No one even has to know you hurt someone. There is no legal punishment. So the Church maybe wants to make up the difference, in some ways? To emphasize that abortion isn't something you can just do -- knowingly do -- and forget about. Because our current society doesn't sufficiently remind people of that fact.

Posted by: Alexandra at March 31, 2009 4:34 PM


I'm just surprised nobody has yet coined the term "The Hunch-Barack of Notre Dame."

Posted by: Burning Woman at March 31, 2009 4:47 PM


Carla,

see below..
from Father Frank Pavone (priests for life). The Catholic lady who co-hosts his EWTN tv show has had an abortion..I forget her name..

"We love them ..... the women who have had abortions. We love them. The Church cares about them, forgives them, heals them, brings them peace with God, with their child, and with themselves. The Church promises any woman who has had an abortion that if she comes to us repenting of her sin, she will find welcome and forgiveness.

This, however, does not deny a basic fact: every abortion kills a child. Every abortion ends a tiny, defenseless human life. Every abortion stops a beating heart. We don't do ourselves any favors by denying the truth. It is, in fact, only when we recognize the enormity of our sins that we can really appreciate how great God's mercy is!

Together with the fact that abortion is a mortal sin, it should also be understood that an abortion brings an automatic excommunication upon those who procure it, perform it, or cooperate in it. The purpose of the excommunication is not to reject anyone, but precisely to HELP people understand how evil abortion is, and help them to turn away from it. We would not respect a doctor who did not tell us the seriousness of our disease; nor should we respect a Church that does not tell us the seriousness of our sin. But again, let us bear in mind that God's mercy is ready to forgive our sin in the Sacrament of Confession, and to reconcile us to the Church by removing the excommunication. "

https://priestsforlife.org/preaching/never.html

Posted by: Jasper at March 31, 2009 5:19 PM


On the topic of the ND invitation, here's a bit of news.

Head of Holy Cross order asks Obama to rethink position on abortion
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901461.htm

President of US Bishops Conference: Notre Dame Obama Invite an "Extreme Embarassment"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09033106.html

Posted by: Fed Up at March 31, 2009 5:50 PM


Thanks everyone.
So....a woman is excommunicated if she has an abortion but cannot be welcomed back until she regrets and asks forgiveness for it?

Is excommunication used as a deterrent? Does it mean no communion or is there more to it than that?

Thanks Alexandra...you know quite a bit about Catholicism. I do not. :)

Posted by: Carla at March 31, 2009 7:00 PM


Carla, I 'm no expert but maybe this will help:

a general resource about excommunication and abortion:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Abortio2.htm

from CatholicEducation.org

Always remember that the severe penalty of excommunication exists first to prevent a heinous sin from occurring (i.e. moving a person to rethink performing an action in light of the penalty that will be imposed), and second to move a person to repentance and reconciliation. Also, for a person to be automatically excommunicated, he must know that the penalty exists and will be imposed for a particular offense, and then choose to perform the action with full knowledge and freedom.

In all, the Church strives not only to uphold the truth about the sanctity of life and to prevent a person from committing such a heinous sin, but also to reconcile the sinner and to be the instrument of the Lord’s compassion and mercy.

taken from:(http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0143.html)

At one time, going to the sacrament of confession entailed a great deal of fear. Things for the most part have changed today, with many priests being very open and tender (I would think) towards a woman in such a situation.
Although I have never had an abortion, I have experienced such peace of Christ through the actions of the priest.


Posted by: angel at March 31, 2009 7:37 PM


Carla,

I'm here cuz I was told you had a "Catholic" question. I think there is a bit of confusion, tho I haven't read all of the posts...

Being excommunicated does not really mean that you "Can't Receive Communion"....I mean, you can't receive communion, but that is a side consequence.

Ex communication, simply means that you, by your own choice and/or actions, you have broken communion with the church. You are no longer in union...community union...you see? So until you come back into the community, you may not participate fully in certain practices. You can still go to Mass...you would NEVER be stopped from that. But you are not considered a member in good standing. Confession, special dispensation from a bishop or priest that has been specifically given permission from a bishop, and you're back in. If you are a Catholic that truly loves the church, you will miss her and most especially you will long to be "one" with Jesus in the Eucharist. (Remember, we believe that that truly is HIM...not just a symbol)...and you will do everything in your power to make things right.

A contrite heart and a formal confession are basically all it takes. The only real difference that I know of, is that only certain priests and bishops (Bobby says that in certain diocese, like mine, ALL priests have been given the power to lift an excommunication by the Bishop)can lift an excommunication.

Also, you don't have to be "told" that you are excommunicated. It happens automatically. I'm not even sure what the topic is here, but whoever was excommunicated, was excommunicated even before he was told that he was. See?

It's really something you choose. You do something so gravely sinful, that you "break your covenant" with God, and it must be restored.

Most Catholics that have done something that serious, weren't really practicing anyway. I think you'd be hard pressed, except in rare circumstances, to find someone that attended mass regularly, went confession regulary, received communion regularly, that would ever do anything to get themselves excommunicated. I'm afraid an awful lot of poorly practicing Catholics might be walking around excommunicated without even realizing it.

Bobby could add a lot more, and I might have gotten something wrong, but for what it's worth, that is my understanding...

Posted by: mk at March 31, 2009 7:54 PM


Ah, I just read Angels post, and I was wrong about people walking around without knowing it...I'd forgotten that to commit a mortal sin three things must be present...you must know that it IS a mortal sin, you must do it of your own free will, and it must be a very serious sin...The same rules apply for excommunication. So while many Catholics haven't been excommunicated, sadly, they have fulfilled the third requirement...that is they have committed very serious sins.

Posted by: mk at March 31, 2009 7:58 PM


thanks MK, bless your heart. You do a great job at explaining things...Bobby may be busy with the little one tonight.


Posted by: Jasper at March 31, 2009 8:07 PM


I shall ask more Catholic questions if it brings my MK back!!! :)

I guess I really want to know if the love is there. The tender love of Christ through His people to help restore hope and healing to the broken. Women who have had abortions and regret them are that. There are so many of us.....those that acknowledge the sin and ask forgiveness and those that know what they did and don't know what to do about it.

You know my heart. I want to help them all and would hate to think that the Catholic church or any other would shun someone that so desperately needs Jesus.

Love you and Miss you, MK!

Posted by: Carla at March 31, 2009 8:10 PM


Haha, Carla, I don't know very much about Catholicism. But I have looked far and wide to settle on the empty, meaningless life I currently lead, so I know a bit. ;)

Plus, you know, all those years my mom spent in Catholic school...

Posted by: Alexandra at March 31, 2009 8:13 PM


Well done, MK and angel.

I haven't seen any shunning, Carla. One woman I knew was WARMLY received into the Church not long after her 3rd abortion.

As MK said, the person is excluded from sacraments (communion, confirmation, etc) NOT from worship or other church activities like meetings, prayer groups, etc. The person may go to confession whenever she wants. It's not like she has to wait a prescribed amount of time.

Also, at least in my parish, it's not unusual to see people abstain from communion. I'd say there's at least 10 or so at each Mass. Both genders. The Communion Police don't go around asking why. They are free to interact with everyone after the Mass. No shunning that I see.

Posted by: Fed Up at March 31, 2009 8:22 PM


I saw a very interesting poll today, Gallup I believe, which showed that Catholics as a whole held the same views on abortion, stem cell research, and other "moral issues" as Americans as a whole. No statistical difference.

So all of you who want to excommunicate all but the hard liners would have to excommunicate about 70-80% of all Catholics, and put the Church out of business, or have it with 20% of the membership and financial support it has today.

Posted by: Bystander at March 31, 2009 8:35 PM


YLT,

Do you know what the definition of the word fall is? How can the Pope be currently descended into the Hitler Youth and therefore be fallen if he a) did not start at a higher ethical position in life or b) still remain in the Hitler Youth?

Donohue is currently fallen from a position and still remains there. The Pope doesnt really fit either spot.

You guys should ban YLT for posting such awfully confused posts. Pathetic.

Posted by: Oliver at April 1, 2009 3:48 AM


Carla,

You're too sweet. No, Catholic questions will get me every time.

I wanted to add something.

One of the differences between the Catholic Faith and the Protestant faith (and I'm not making a judgment here, just explaining excommunication a bit further) is that Protestants focus on their relationship with God...you know how you say "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?"

Well, Catholics, obviously, have a personal relationship with Jesus, but it goes beyond that.

We are the "CHURCH". WE are one body. We have a personal relationship with each other too. God, and us...We are a family. We are each a member of this family.

If one of the members of my own family, were to do something that threatened the well being of the rest of the family, like abusing drugs, then he would remain a member of the family, but he might be "estranged". Not really acting the part. We wouldn't disown him, but he might not show up for Christmas Dinner. He might not call on birthdays...you see? So while he is still a member of the family, he is not an active participant.

You can believe that if he got into rehab, got off drugs, and rang our doorbell one Christmas, he be drawn back in in a heartbeat. Think of the prodigal son.

Or think of our bodies. Each part of the body is important. But if one part gets broken, it cannot do it's share. We go to a doctor to get it healed. And then we wait until it is in working order again, before it can truly be called part of the working "body"...

But we aren't punishing our broken leg. And we aren't punishing the drug addict. We WANT both to be healed and to come home/get better.

Thanks Jasper. No Problem.

Bystander,

If you look at that poll, you'll notice that there is a different set of statistics for PRACTICING Catholics than for NON PRACTICING Catholics. There is a large difference between the general population and PRACTICING Catholics.

You obviously didn't read my answer to Carla about excommunication...you have to BE AWARE that something will get you excommunicated...it isn't just done to you...

Yo Lo,

Still using that faulty logic I see. Yes, the man is 70 something years old and you see him as still on the ground from when he was a teenager. ...lol. Your world is very, very small. *shakes head*. Did you read ANYTHING we said about excommunication?

Posted by: mk at April 1, 2009 5:34 AM


Thank you all very much!! April is Abortion Recovery Awareness Month and I am praying for all of my fellow post abortive moms that are waiting silently for help and hope and healing. :)I am thankful that you will receive them.

MK,
I appreciate all of your responses very much. I am a Christ follower. I worship with my brothers and sisters in Christ at a Baptist General Conference church. They are absolutely my family and I turn to them as we walk this journey together. I believe we have that in common. I am pleased to see that I understood every word you wrote. LOL

Posted by: Carla at April 1, 2009 6:06 AM


Alexandra,
I know what you mean. Empty. Meaningless. Maybe we should email each other about that. :)

Posted by: Carla at April 1, 2009 6:08 AM


Oh, Carla! You are too sweet. I think my life is actually pretty meaningful -- I have searched far and wide to settle on it, after all -- but, well, you know the discussion that will ensue. I'm pretty accustomed to being called empty for merely not knowing the answers. I said it all here more than a year ago now (eesh), when the Weekend Question involved whether or not lives lived apart from faith in Jesus Christ are empty and dead-ended. Fortunately I got my comment in, like, fifth, and got out before that epic Purgatory discussion!

Some things have changed since then. But the gist is still the same.

Posted by: Alexandra at April 1, 2009 6:32 AM


I was on that discussion for awhile.....I think it is the record holder for most comments?? Into the thousands, at least. :)

We all search for meaning. I mean it. You are such a joy to know, Alexandra!! I mean that too.

Posted by: Carla at April 1, 2009 7:03 AM


YLT: the Pope had no choice about the Hitler Youth. Everyone had to join.

So all of you who want to excommunicate all but the hard liners would have to excommunicate about 70-80% of all Catholics, and put the Church out of business, or have it with 20% of the membership and financial support it has today.

Posted by: Bystander at March 31, 2009 8:35 PM

well fortunately, the Catholic Church doesn't allow it's faithful to determine doctrine. It merely follows the teachings of Christ and is involved in evangelizing the world.
So if 80 percent don't follow Catholic teaching in a certain area such as sexuality, this means that better instruction is needed so Catholics can understand and practice their faith.
Of course the Catholic Church forces no one and is a wholly reasonable in it's beliefs (yes it's true!), which was precisely Benedict's point in his address in Germany. Belief is a matter of choice and belief is closely allied with reason.

Posted by: angel at April 1, 2009 7:04 AM


"April is Abortion Recovery Awareness Month"

I didn't know this! This could certainly be a prayer intention for all Christians this month - to pray for healing and peace to those mom's who've experienced this trauma in their lives. And for all others who may have been connected in some way to an abortion.

Posted by: angel at April 1, 2009 7:17 AM


angel,
You won't see that on the news. :)

http://www.abortionrecoveryinternational.org

THANK YOU for praying for all of us that have been hurt by abortion.

Posted by: Carla at April 1, 2009 7:39 AM


hey thanks for the link Carla. I will book mark it and check it out in greater detail.
I'll be praying for women like you to continue in your ministry. It must be very difficult for you - I get that sense from watching your videos that have been posted.
Be gentle with yourself!

Posted by: angel at April 1, 2009 7:43 AM


" Can anyone answer my questions from 12:22pm? "

Oh Carla, I'm so sorry! I totally missed this question yesterday! I was NOT ignoring you. Let me read the responses and the discussion, and I'll let you know if I have anything to add. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 1, 2009 8:12 AM


The answers were very good, especially from Alexandra who isn't even Catholic! Of course, it is a joy to see MK post here too. Are there any lingering questions Carla? Or does that all clear that up?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 1, 2009 8:31 AM


Bobby,
I just really wanted to know if there was love. And acceptance. With 50 million abortions, there are a lot of hurting people out here. I am hoping and praying that we are all standing ready to reach out to them with the hope and healing found only in Christ. :)
Thanks Bobby. I can't understand how you can be so busy with one sweet pea and another on the way!! :)

Posted by: Carla at April 1, 2009 8:49 AM


Hi Angel,
It is difficult to be so transparent in telling my story. But there is much joy in helping others.

After one of the services a couple of weeks ago a woman fell into my arms sobbing. She had been forced by her mother to have an abortion at the age of 16. That is why I have to do what I have to do. :)

(So much for CHOICE, right??)

Posted by: Carla at April 1, 2009 8:53 AM


"I just really wanted to know if there was love."

Right, and there is indeed. It's just always tricky because there are two sides of it, as there are for many issues, and both sides aren't usually emphasized when trying to explain only one particular thing. We must preach how contrary it is to God's law, yet at the same time, there is the flip side of God's healing and love for those who have suffered an abortion. We are always ready to bring anyone back into full communion with the Church who has had an abortion, as any sin, even abortion, is only a drop in the infinite ocean of mercy of God.

So sometimes we do concentrate on the punishment, the severity, the graveness, etc of abortion, but then there is the whole other side of healing, of acceptance, of love, and rejoicing over one who is repentant.

"I can't understand how you can be so busy with one sweet pea and another on the way!! :) "

Hehe, yeah... in fact, I started teaching too on Monday! So now I'm writing a dissertation, teaching a course here at the college, and the new baby will be born in the middle of the term! Fun stuff!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 1, 2009 8:58 AM


I am checking in after commenting here a while back (got caught up in other things). I can't watch the You Tube clip right now, but here is my take:

I can absolutely understand why Catholics would not want to see President Obama honored at a Catholic University. I can't fathom why Notre Dame invited him in the first place.

But, now having invited him, I am not sure how they can get out of it easily. After all his views on abortion were well known before the invitation was extended. He is a sitting President of the United States. It would be incredibly rude at this stage to rescind the invitation. And it wouldn't come off as particularly principled since they invited him in the first place. So I'd say Notre Dame is in a tight spot!!

Posted by: Prochoicer at April 1, 2009 9:13 AM


Just to be clear. I don't really care what Notre Dame does. I wouldn't be offended in particular if Notre Dame rescinds the invitation, but I can understand why they might find it difficult to do so.

Posted by: Prochoicer at April 1, 2009 9:20 AM


Prochoicer @ 9:13AM So I'd say Notre Dame is in a tight spot!!

Yes. The Superior General of Fr Jenkins' order tackles this issue in his letter to Pres Obama.

I sincerely want to rejoice in your presence at Notre Dame as President of the United States. But really, can I? In all sincerity, President Obama, how are we Catholics to deal with you, or any other government leader, who upholds what we believe to be the intrinsic evil of abortion and who is willing to sign the FOCA legislation? How are we to confront Catholic leaders in your own Administration by whom we feel so abandoned? Are we to use tactics of shunning you and dismissing you as we feel shunned and dismissed?--Rev. Hugh W. Cleary, C.S.C.

Text of the entire letter here http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=809

Posted by: Fed Up at April 1, 2009 10:05 AM


Hey Bobby--

Your posts on priestly celibacy do make a lot of sense.

I remember reading a biography of Father Damien of the Lepers.

After his death, another priest would have to take his place. That man was almost assured of dying from leprosy. There was also great chance to show the love of Christ to hurting and dying people.

I think something like all but one of the priests volunteered. It's just amazing.

And it is true how a married pastor with children could not easily do that. My husband (who is not a pastor) has a responsibility to my daughter and I. He can't martyr himself for Christ without considering its effect on us (though given the choice to die or deny Christ, I still would want him to choose the former). He can't go live in Costa Rica and minister to Nicaraguan refugees if one day the urge hits him, without first finding a means of supporting our family and a place for us to live.

Posted by: YCW at April 1, 2009 10:13 AM


After one of the services a couple of weeks ago a woman fell into my arms sobbing. She had been forced by her mother to have an abortion at the age of 16.

ah very sad indeed. Poor thing. :(
I think these women really need to know the love of God because they think they don't deserve it. They couldn't be more wrong.

Posted by: angel at April 1, 2009 1:18 PM


Posted by: Prochoicer at April 1, 2009 9:13 AM


But, now having invited him, I am not sure how they can get out of it easily. After all his views on abortion were well known before the invitation was extended. He is a sitting President of the United States. It would be incredibly rude at this stage to rescind the invitation. And it wouldn't come off as particularly principled since they invited him in the first place. So I'd say Notre Dame is in a tight spot!!

------------------------------------------------------

What goes around come around. PBHO has 'stiffed' quite few world leaders in his first 70 days in office. (Not to mention most americans.)

If ND rescinded the invite it would just be a 'quick turn around' on the cosmic negative karma PBHO has generated in recent days.

Spreand happiness where you go,......not when.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at April 1, 2009 7:41 PM