Imagine walking up to your pastor for the bread and the wine at a Roman Catholic Communion. Now imagine if he just shakes his head and refuses to give you the body of Christ. Apparently, this priest has never heard of the famous Bible quote "Do not judge lest you be judged." What was the reasoning behind this refusal? Because conservative, Catholic lawyer Douglas Kmiec gave his endorsement to our next President Barack Obama.
During his homily, the priest said that any good Christian would not endorse a pro-choice politician in any aspect, speaking of Kmiec. Then when he refused to give the bread, Kmiec said that the priest was making a big mistake, which he was. How can a priest, a person that hundres of members of the church look up to for guidance be so inconsiderate and unintelligent. Just because Barack is supporting pro-choice doesn't mean that Kmiec is too. And even if he was, who is this priest to tell him that he cannot. Just because you are a member of a church doesn't mean that you follow every belief and doctrine released from the church (AKA Barack Obama-Reverend Wright syndrome). Now, the priest has not only disrespected a loyal member of the church, but also has brain-washed those members of the church towards his political beliefs. Church and state need to be separated, and situations like this only further this problem
I agree that clergymen should not get themselves intimately mixed up with politics, like Wright or Pfleger or Hagee or ... you get the idea.
I would also say that this priest has every right to disagree with Kmiec's political views, but it was simply not appropriate to do it during Holy Communion and in front of a large audience. If Kmiec's views are at odds with the church, the church has every right to reprimand him for it.
Take an extreme example: if it (hypothetically) became illegal to worship God in a church, a priest should NOT refrain from "indoctrinating" a church member in the interest of remaining apolitical. So then, if a certain political issue doesn't agree with a religious doctrine, then a clergyperson has every right to reprimand a member of his church for those political opinions. But there's a time and a place for doing that, which Kmiec's priest failed to realize.
Here in the United States, we observe the separation of church and state rule, but that does not mean the separation of state and church. In some of the church services I've attended, the pastor would pray for our nation, our soldiers, and our President. What I mean is, while the church may have no place in government, politics may have a place in church.
On a related note, I'll venture to say that separation of church and state does not equate the separation of religion and state. But I'll save that for another blog, another day.
I don't know if I agree that a priest should do that unless an extreme case such as yours comes up. Also, with this case with Kmiec, he is in no way stating that he is pro-choice. In fact, in an interview with him, he says that he is merely looking past that because of the many other great options that Barack is giving the country.
If Kmiec came out and bluntly stated that he is pro-choice and everyone should be pro-choice, maybe there would be a different case for the priest, but he has such a power over members of the parish that I believe that he is abusing it.
Finally, I believe that we should completely eliminate the tie between church and state, state and church and religion and state. I believe that only when this happens will government be able to lead the people effectively.
Okay, right. I'll have to be careful not to associate supporters of a candidate with all of that candidate's views. I've ardently criticized what I call "political cubbyholing" in the past, so thanks for reigning me in from the precipice of hypocrisy. Let me rephrase my statement: Kmiec's priest should not have criticized him for his support of Obama, unless Kmiec said he also supports Obama's pro-abortion stance as well, which you pointed out he didn't. The priest may criticize abortion supporters in a church, but not necessarily a person who supports a politician with such a view.
Back onto our tangent, I oppose the total secularization of America for the sole reason that religiously inspired norms and morals have influenced this nation's laws and society, from the Puritans to the Progressives and onwards to the current day. Abandoning the religious aspect of America's attribute is akin to abandoning its constitutional or democratic aspects. Speaking of "democratic aspects" -- well, I suppose that the people should ultimately decide whether or not America ought to be secularized. I don't see that happening in the near future. The religious in general constitute a very large majority in this nation. What the people want is what America gets. There is always the argument that the people don't know what's best for them, which I think is true is rare cases, but not this one.
How true though, so many great laws have come out of religion and its morals, if you think about it. If we wouldn't have religion and government together, there would be mainly anarchy because people's values and beliefs are constantly changing, while the church's is written in stone (no pun intended, but it is awesome). Here is actually another case of your last line, that the people don't know what's best for them, but if you believe God does, then church and state and state and church should not be separated. Nicely done.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
That is the Catholic church's rule based religion for you. Just to be clear not all God fearing beliefs/ religion is like that. I do not want the masses to think we are all freaks.
I have seen people denied and kicked out for lesser evils then direct/indirect violation of the abortion related things.
Arg! People are crazy, not God
~T
All truths are easy to understand once discovered; The point is to discover them ~Galileo
I agree that it is people and not God who are crazy. If there is a God (I'm not atheist, but not highly religious, I think it's called agnostic? I think), I'm sure he would not kick a lawyer out of a church for supporting a candidate for President. As far as I've learned through Confirmation classes and such, God is all-forgiving and as long as you ask for it, you can get freed from any sin you have committed.
What other things have you seen people get kicked out of Church for though? I am highly interested.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Definately agnostic...means not really sure... this usually happens because crazy people make the truth unrealistic i guess.
From a catholic church, someone was kicked out for reading the newspaper during church.
Um, Disagreement on the little things made the family leave... not sure if by choice, the feeling of unwelcomeness, or being kicked out....
Can not remember anyother examples just now.
~T
All truths are easy to understand once discovered; The point is to discover them ~Galileo
So it's basically got to be disrespect to the church or a complete disagreement to the Church. Although, I don't know if the Kmiec situation is more or less outrageous because he never said he's pro-choice, but the priest is all-powerful in the Church (well, except for God), so he has the final word.
What do you mean the crazy people? I assume you are saying the extreme-religious people are making it seem completely impossible that the Bible is true and that God exists and that the extreme-atheists are making it seem like you are an idiot if you believe that God can exist. Because this is the way I feel.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
I was kind of disconcerted to learn that the Imam at a Mosque in Tampa was acually giving a fatwa or something akin to it that all Muslims should vote for Obama
I was :yikes:
"The heart's memory eliminates the bad and magnifies the good."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Love in the Time of Cholera
http://www.progressiveu.org/012450-old-and-gold-times-change-my-immigran...