Cardinal Dolan And Vp Biden

[HisChildForever]

Article here.

 

The straw that broke the camel’s back was the abomination that took place on Palm Sunday at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, where unapologetic pro-abortion politician Joe Biden received Holy Communion

 

I have a bunch of thoughts about this. First, how can clergy ever be 100% sure that a Catholic like Biden shouldn't receive? What if he had a "eureka" moment the night before and went to confession before Mass?

 

Furthermore, Biden's said that he's pro-life but as a politician he doesn't want to impose his faith on others. Assuming that he considers abortion a theological rather than humanitarian issue, what's everyone's thoughts on this? That the Joe Biden at St. Patrick's was Biden the man, the Catholic, there to practice his faith, not Biden the politician? For example, at work I've found myself in positions where I've had to been neutral, where I've had to "mute" my Catholic mind - this is when I've been consulted by patients with mental illness and or substance abuse, not co-workers. When a young man opened up about a date he had that evening with a gentleman that seemed like the right person, or when a young woman confided that she had unprotected sex, took Plan B, and what now? These are the kinds of situations where I'm put in a difficult position. As a Catholic, I'm not to advocate a homosexual relationship or contraception/abortifacients, but as a mental health professional, I'm to be as open-minded and accepting as possible. I'm not about to refer someone to Planned Parenthood, but it's also not my place to tell them that premarital sex and contraception are immoral. Is it possible that Biden is a legitimate Catholic who's trying to separate his faith life from his professional career? Especially a career that's meant to listen to and welcome everyone's perspectives and opinions, even when so many of them conflict?

 

It seems that's been my approach with all the gay marriage talk right now. As a Catholic, I won't support it and I'll vote against it. But other than my personal religious reasons, is it really right to impose my religious beliefs on people who don't share them - especially since marriage is both secular and religious, so long as religious institutions aren't forced to perform these kinds of ceremonies, how is it okay for my religious beliefs to influence a secular issue.

 

I'm really not sure what I think about it, it's just been on my mind.

 

after having been singled out for honor by Cardinal Dolan who announced to the standing room only gathering, “We welcome the vice president of the United States, Mr. Biden, we welcome him here!”

  

 

Who cares? lol.

[Fidei Defensor]

I think that's what is ultimately at issue — imposing personal beliefs on the general public.  The Constitution grants the right of free practice of religion and its associated beliefs, and it isn't the place of the Government to legislate one version of morals over the other.

 

Specifically in the case of same-sex marriages, as it stands right now, the Government (via the law) is saying that two consenting adults of the same sex cannot be granted secular marriage licenses.  It should not be doing this.  Allowing the granting of licenses to same-sex couples is not legislating an anti-Christian morality, because it is not preventing "traditional" marriage, but rather, it is allowing for a differing set of beliefs about marriage to be legitimately practiced.

[Nihil Obstat]

Apropos, especially section 3:

 

 

A primer on Church teaching regarding ‘same-sex marriage’

March 27, 2013

No matter which way the US Supreme Court rules in the “gay marriage” cases before it the international debate over the definition of marriage will continue because that debate is, at root, about matters beyond a civil court’s competence, things like the nature of human beings and the fundamental good of society. Because we Catholics are and will surely remain major participants in such a debate we should be clear among ourselves as to what our Church teaches in this area. I offer as a primer (I stress, primer) toward such better understanding my position on following points.

1. The Catholic Church teaches, though its ordinary magisterium and with infallible certainty, that marriage exists only between one man and one woman. CDF, “Considerations” (2003) passim; CCC 1601-1608; CCEO (1990) 776; 1983 CIC 1055 § 1; Rite of Marriage (1969) n. 2; Vatican II, Gaudium et spes (1965) 48; Pius XI, Casti connubii(1930) 6, 20, 23; Leo XIII, Arcanum (1880) 5, 24; Matthew XIX: 4-6; and Genesis II: 21-24. There is no evidence of ecclesiastical authorityever supporting any other definition of marriage.

1. Note. It is possible that this teaching is proposed as an object of belief (credenda, per Canon 750 § 1, doubt or denial of which assertion would be heresy under Canon 751 and thus sanctionable under Canon 1364 § 1); at a minimum, however, the Church proposes the man-woman assertion as necessarily to be held (tenenda) in order “to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith” (Canon 750 § 2), rendering those who “obstinately reject” the assertion liable to “a just penalty” if, having been duly admonished, they refuse to retract (Canon 1371, 2º).

2. The Catholic Church has the right and duty “always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.” 1983 CIC 747 § 2; CCC 2246.

3. Catholics who promote “same-sex marriage” act contrary to Canon 209 § 1 and should not approach for holy Communion per Canon 916. Depending on the facts of the case, they also risk having holy Communion withheld from them under Canon 915, being rebuked under Canon 1339 § 2, and/or being sanctioned under Canon 1369 for gravely injuring good morals.

3. Note. The situation of Catholic politicians lending support to “same-sex marriage” is to be assessed as above, with special attention being paid to the heightened responsibility that civil servants have to protect the common good. CDF, “Considerations” (2003) 10; CCC 2235-2237, 2244; 1983 CIC 1326 § 1, 2.

4. The Catholic Church would regard any attempt by persons of the same sex to marry, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof, as null. CCC 1603; 1983 CIC 1055 § 1.

5. Catholics who attempt a “same-sex marriage” act contrary to Canon 209 § 1 and should not approach for holy Communion per Canon 916. Depending on the facts of the case, they also risk having holy Communion withheld from them under Canon 915, being rebuked under Canon 1339 § 2, and/or being sanctioned under Canon 1379 for simulation of a sacrament. Moreover, Catholics who assist others toward attempting a “same-sex marriage” cooperate in the bad act of those others, which cooperation is liable to moral assessment in accord with the usual principles applicable to cooperation with evil and, under certain facts, according to the canonical principles applying to cooperation in crime per Canon 1329 and/or scandal per Canon 1339 § 2, etc.

5. Note. Catholics who have attempted a “same-sex marriage” or who have assisted another toward a “same-sex marriage” can be reconciled morally under the usual conditions by sacramental Confession (Canon 959) or by a ‘perfect act of contrition’ per CCC 1452; they can be reconciled canonically, if necessary, in accord with applicable law.

 

 

[ToJesusMyHeart]

This is unfortunate.  :sad2:

[HisChildForever]

Thanks for the responses everyone, and for keeping this a low-key discussion.

 

Out of curiosity, it seems to me that on Facebook and elsewhere, Catholics and non-Catholic Christians are the ones bearing the brunt of "you're a hater" via gay marriage supporters - I wonder why Jewish and Islamic faiths (that also speak against gay marriage) are being ignored?

[Luigi]

I've never bought the argument that "I believe X, but I it's not right to impose my beliefs on the public."

 

Politicians try to impose their beliefs about gun control on the public, and about education, and about helping the poor & disabled (whether that's raising minimum wage or passsing ObamaCare), and on every other topic that comes up for public debate. The ONLY topic on which I see them draw the personal-opinion-public-policy line is abortion.

 

HFC, As far as your responses to clients, I think you're approaching it correctly. You have your beliefs, you live by them, and in your professional role you cannot impose them on your clients.

 

In terms of Cardinal Dolan giving communion to Joe Biden, I don't know what to think - it doesn't look right to me, but I don't have any seminary training either. I'm sure it's the kind of topic that they discussed in seminary, and that priests still discuss with each other over golf or beer.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

I think Christians are generally more "in your face" than Jews and Muslims....in America, that is. I'm sure it's different in the Middle East. In America, however, from my experience, it seems that Jews and Muslims typically keep their faith more of a private thing, but the Christians are using their voices and trying to effect changes.

[thessalonian]

Have to say I  am rather dissapointed in this matter with Cardinal Dolan.   They need to stop kissing up to politicians who have the blood of 50 million children on their hands.  Especially when that politician claims to be a devout Catholic.  Call evil, EVIL!

Edited March 27, 2013 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

I think that's what is ultimately at issue — imposing personal beliefs on the general public.  The Constitution grants the right of free practice of religion and its associated beliefs, and it isn't the place of the Government to legislate one version of morals over the other.

 

Specifically in the case of same-sex marriages, as it stands right now, the Government (via the law) is saying that two consenting adults of the same sex cannot be granted secular marriage licenses.  It should not be doing this.  Allowing the granting of licenses to same-sex couples is not legislating an anti-Christian morality, because it is not preventing "traditional" marriage, but rather, it is allowing for a differing set of beliefs about marriage to be legitimately practiced.

 

Ah so the Church should be silent about 50 million babies murdered.  Oh well we can believe it is murder but don't impose that belief on others.  Let em kill.  And when the age of viability goes up to 12 years old (as it is in the Netherlands for the handicaped) well, we should be silent about that too.    What you really want is your immorality imposed on society.

[Apotheoun]

Letting Joe Biden take communion is not a charitable act, because after all it is never charitable to empower a person to commit an act of sacrilege.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Apotheoun

[thessalonian]

" it is allowing for a differing set of beliefs about marriage to be legitimately practiced."

 

Polygamy, polomory, two ducks, a chicken and a man.

[HisChildForever]

I'm sorry to make this thread and run, but I'm going out for the night - behave yourselves!

[Fidei Defensor]

" it is allowing for a differing set of beliefs about marriage to be legitimately practiced."

 

Polygamy, polomory, two ducks, a chicken and a man.

I was expecting that to come up.

 

First I will say that I believe, under our religious freedom protections and our legal framework, that polygamy should be legal.  Personally, I don't think that polygamy itself is prudent. However, it is part of the belief system of the Mormonism and falls under freedom to practice religion and its associated beliefs.

 

To address the other part, marriage, whether traditional form or not, has always included consent (we're going to ignore forced marriages of older times because we have corrected that error.)  Animals and inanimate objects cannot consent and thus makes it a moot point.  There is no slippery slope with marriage being between two consenting adults.

[BG45]

I'm sorry to make this thread and run, but I'm going out for the night - behave yourselves!

 

And then HCF came back to find 8 locked pages of angry arguments. :|

[penguin31]

Because when I think of practicing faithful, obedient, and orthodox Catholicism, I think of calling into question the actions of a Cardinal who also happens to be the Archbishop of New York *and* the head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.