Talk Elections

Fair is fair...

No, because he does, indeed, follow the Catholic Church's backwards-ass social morality.

Have you heard the Paul Ryan Personal Dictionary definition of the phrase 'preferential option for the poor'?

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, or at least one organ thereof, condemned his budget. The Catholic Church does not, by and large, institutionally adhere to Randian economic rhetoric or Austrian/Chicago economic theory.

The US Council of Bishops, which is extremely conservative for a Catholic organization, strongly condemned the Ryan budget.

Surprised it took you this long to show your bitterness, Harry! And don't call me biased. You know I thought the movement to deny Kerry communion was wrong. Same with the denial for any other Pro Choice official.

That being said, can people that know better stop calling the Conference of Bishops a "very conservative organization?" Socially and theologically, yes. Economically, not so much. That goes for the Church in general. It's moderate overall. So enough with the "Ryan's own kind even think he's too extreme!"

The Church is unsound on economics I agree (no, they go way beyond turning the cold shoulder on Rand and some of the Austrian kooks, but it is sad to see you add "Chicago" to that noxious mix, when I went there, and actually knew many of the illustrious U of C "perps"), but you must know, as this WASP near atheist knows, that that is not the kind of thing for which one is denied communion. To go there, you need to have sinned on matters closer to the heart. Heck did they ever ex-communicate Hitler, or deny communion to any of the Fascist thugs?  Unfair sure, but I don't think being a sociopath in the public square or otherwise is a basis for denying communion. TJ is needed here of course.

The Bishops have called out Ryan both for his budget and for his obsession with Rand, but he's not going to get denied communion because he isn't advocating as a representative for a mortal sin. That usually only happens for pro-choice Catholic pols.

Ryan has clarified his feelings about Rand in a religious context, for the record.

Ryan denounced the Austrian cult long ago, Randism and all.  He's a Thomas Aquinas fan, now.

So brave. You must be so proud of yourself, taking on an evil, giant montrosity like the Catholic Church with your generic anti-Christian sentiments.

Let me add a little substance to your strawman. First, ignorant? Really? The Catholic Church is one of the most pro-science religious groups in the world. No other religious organization employs scientists with doctorates anywhere close to the ballpark of the Catholic Church. The Pope has his own team of scientists. The Catholic Church has been at the forefront of scientific discovery throughout history because it believes that science illuminates the creation of God. A Catholic priest originated the idea of the Big Bang theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre). A Catholic friar described the mechanism for natural selection through genes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel). The Catholic Church accepts evolution, has discredited young-Earth creationism, and has actively helped in the search for extraterrestrial life. The Catholic Church has built more schools and universities that focus on science than any other institution in the history of the world.

Socially unaware? What does that even mean? The Catholic Church is the most socially conscious institution in the world. They've built more hospitals and orphanages than anyone in history. They actively perform and call others to perform incredible services for the poor. They have numerous charitable organizations that actually help people, moreso than the government could ever do.

Anti-choice? You could say that. I'm not going to argue abortion here. What's important is that the Church believes that abortion is wrong not because they want to "suppress women" or what have you, but because they genuinely care about ever human life. They are consistently pro-life in their teachings. The Church has condemned countless wars, condemned the death penalty, and have advocated for universal health care. On top of that, the actually have support programs for women who do choose to have their children. They have adoption services, counseling services, and support programs to make sure women don't have to choose to kill their children. They walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Homophobic? Please. Just because the Church doesn't accept gay marriage doesn't mean they hate gays. Far from it. Unlike many conservative protestant churches, the Church doesn't believe being gay is a choice, believes that trying to change people from being gay is fundamentally an attack on their human dignity, and believes that you should treat everyone, regardless of sexual orientation equally. The Church believes in a theological basis for marriage that reflects the union of God and the Church and that sexual actions should be conducted out of sacrificial, self-giving love that is open to the aforementioned value of life. That doesn’t leave room for gay marriage, but it’s not because they hate gay people. By their view, saying gays can't get married is not any different than saying men can't give birth; it's definitionally impossible. Their position isn’t going to satisfy liberals and libertarians, but they don’t care about that. Why should they?

Great post from realisticidealist, although I don't gloss over the Church's anti-gay stance in real life.  Not that I ever have to, since most Mississippians see the Church as pro-gay by comparison.

Of course, he wouldn't be a catholic politician on the national level without this happening.

I'm Catholic and I think he's very extreme and a dangerous person.

Phil and realisticidealist, I'm kind of curious what you think of communion denial under any circumstances. My church is fine with communion to anyone who's a professing Christian. I really don't like the idea of cutting anyone off for some action as being "unworthy" or whatnot. I'm aware this rarely happens in the Catholic Church today but there are plenty that make a fuss about it, and then you have incidents like that priest in DC who denied it to a woman at her lesbian lover's funeral.

All Republican politicians should be denied communion since they believe in starving the poor and feeding the rich.

Eh, religious people stopped following this compassion of Jesus thing. Compassion is mainly from atheists, these days.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/01/study-atheists-more-compassionate-than-highly-religious-people/

Assuming we're talking about politicians here, I'm not a fan of it, though I can understand why they do it. Catholic communion is a sign of communion with the whole Church, so I can understand if someone openly and majorly advocating against the views of the Church being denied, but it's not like they deny communion to lay people in a state of mortal sin (I presume because it would be impossible to enforce). For me, the fact that it's so arbitrarily enforced makes it seem like its just a political statement by some random bishop. I'd rather they either came up with a standard and enforced it or didn't bother. If they came out and said that all Catholic politicians who endorsed abortion rights were to be denied communion and were in a state of mortal sin, I'd be fine with that, but until then, I don't support it.

I'm aware of the policy on this and I doubt that there will be any serious talk of denying Ryan communion, but I simply had to correct Townsend's statement to the effect that Ryan's public life is entirely compatible with what the Church teaches should be advocated or ought to be able to be advocated under ideal circumstances, ne? I'm sorry for implying a greater link between the Chicago and Austrian schools than in fact exists; obviously one is a good deal more reasonable, rigorous, and real than the other, although from where I'm standing there isn't a huge amount of ideological difference between them (nor indeed is there between me and the Church, on this particular complex of issues).

That study just says that atheists are most apt to do emotionally-stimulated personal random acts of kindness. There are many types of compassion and charity beyond simply this, though I commend them for it.

No, that isn't going anywhere. In order to deny someone communion the Church has to have reason to believe that person is living in a state of mortal sin. When questionable, the person is to be given the benefit of the doubt. For a private citizen you practically have to walk up to the priest before Mass and say "Hey, I'm in a state of mortal sin!" to be denied communion (and even then as the Archdiocese of Washington lesbian-at-a-funeral scandal taught us all) the priest is supposed to tell the person he/she will be denied communion in private before doing so at Mass.

For a politician to be denied communion, he must endorse some grave action to be taken or oppose outlawing it. Pope Benedict back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that politicians who support legal abortion or euthanasia can be denied communion  (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0403722.htm)but it is determined on a case by case basis by the politican's local bishop. Some bishops have done this and others have not. It is far from a settled matter and really can't be without understanding the politician's intentions.

On the basis of economics it would extremely difficult to deny someone communion because the intentions quickly become so complex it would be nearly impossible for a bishop to say conclusively a politician intends to allow or commit some sort of grave sin. Abortion is an incredibly simple issue in the Catholic Church to begin with, while economics is not. And even if it were, the issue involved may not constitute grave matter, while abortion clearly does.

Support for capital punishment and wars doesn't constitute grave matter?

I think the difference there is that there are limited circumstances when the Church is ok with war and the death penalty (eg repelling an invasion or killing someone who is a persisent and continuous threat to the lives of others and there is no means of holding them), whereas the Church is never ok with abortion.

No. Pope John Paul II stated that "the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral." (emphasis added). He went on to say that capital punishment should not be used in most circumstances when other means can be. The position of the current pope is that capital punishment should be abolished; however, the Magisterium stops short of completely forbidding capital punishment under all circumstances.

Now, I personally think it becomes somewhat questionable to take the very narrow room in the Magisterium to advocate for capital punishment in the West, but the Church (barely) stops short of putting on the same level as abortion.


It depends. Pope John Paul II condemned the Iraq War but did not state that all those who support or fought the war have committed a grave sin. There was a Romanian bishop who made headlines for declaring that, but Rome remained silent. The main reason for this is that despite having opposed beginning the war, the Church likely still favored the US over Saddam, such that any support for the US was not morally wrong. Again, it becomes rather complicated.

Also, the Catholic Church teaches that war can be justified under some circumstances, such as the War in Afghanistan.

Coming from someone who was raised Catholic, I think most (if not all) Catholic politicians would be denied Communion.

I'm sure your church doesn't believe in transubstantiation. A good Catholic receiving the Eucharist believes they are receiving what is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Its what the whole Catholic mass is based around, and to take it flippantly and just give it out, especially to those who think its just some symbol or those defying the Lord by being in mortal sin would be to defile Jesus himself.

Can I have some of what your smoking? :)

I understand that that's the rationale, but my church believes in Real Presence and my tendency is to think that that procedure effects much more change on the sinner than it ever could on Jesus.

I should note that Catholics don't really take the communion rules seriously anyway, like how many decline communion in Protestant churches? When I got baptized and my aunt was in attendance, I saw her take communion. So a double whammy, she was already attending and filming my baptism, which many Catholics would probably consider blasphemous (and admittedly many Lutherans as well), and taking communion in a church that's not only non-Catholic but memorialist. I also saw the Catholics on that side of the family taking communion at my cousin's Lutheran confirmation (attendance at the confirmation itself being not problematic and far less so than of my baptism, but taking communion at it still a huge no-no.)

I do.


You are seriously misinformed by what Catholics believe. There's nothing wrong with her attending your baptism, and likewise, for funerals, etc. My father's funeral was in the Episcopalian church - and I was heavily involved in the arrangements.

Mortal sin is mortal sin. Denial of communion requires persistant, manifest expression of grave sin.

1. Dissent from Church teachings.
2. Persistant - ie, the dissent has to be over a certain period of time.
3. Public - ie, the dissent has to be expressed where other people can hear.
4. Grave. It has to be over a matter that would be considered mortal sin. Public endorsement of abortion qualifies.
5. Other interventions have to have failed.

Denial of communion isn't the first step - but if other measures have been tried and haven't worked, then yes, denial of communion is appropriate.

And Phil - all the politicians who claim to be pro-abortion and 'Catholics in good standing' should be denied communion. ESPECIALLY Pelosi. Her dissent goes beyond 'being an irritating nuisance', to 'actively misleading others as to what the Church actually teaches.'

There should be no denial of Communion, even to Protestants and non-Christians.  If God doesn't want someone taking Communion, he can sort it out in the afterlife.


But someone should try to deny it to Paul Ryan just to show conservative Catholics who like him how it feels.

From what I understand the issue isn't so much that I was being baptized in a non-Catholic church but being baptized as an adult after I was as an infant, making it an "invalid sacrament". The Catholic church would be OK with attending the non-Catholic baptism of an adult that was never baptized as a baby.


I would never take communion at a Catholic church anyway no matter what the rules were. No not because of gays or women's status or whatever but because I am simply not comfortable with the premise of transubstantiation and taking part in it.

1, Catholics believe in the Real Presence, many protestants do not. Ergo - it is inappropriate for them to take communion because they do not understand what they are doing.

2, God has made it very clear that Communion should only be taken in a worthy manner. This applies to everyone.

Is His word not good enough for you?

Well, you never mentioned being baptised as an infant. Yes, you're correct here - that is a problem.

It's not so much that rebaptism is bad it's that it simply isn't necessary. Rebaptism denies the essential truth that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins in the Nicaean Creed.

Perhaps, but we should let God sort that out.



No he hasn't, so no.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say who can and can't have Communion, and even if it did, it would just be some silliness written down by a person and put into the Bible cannon for political reasons centuries later.

The Catholic views on transubstantiation aren't in the Bible either and are basically just contrived by the church, especially it's excuse as to why other churches can't do it (something not claimed by other churches with some type of Real Presence theology), which is the biggest issue with it and why I can't accept it and why I would not take communion in any Catholic church regardless of it was "allowed". I'd have no problem taking communion in any church with open communion or open to all Christians.

Whether or not transubstantiation is in the Bible depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

You have to take biblical literalism to the extreme to say it is, which is somewhat ironic because biblical literalists reject it. But jmfcst said something that I totally agree, if it wasn't the actual body and blood at the Last Supper, it certainly isn't later.

There's also this passage:

God has sorted it out. He killed someone in Acts who took it in an unworthy manner.


One, it's 'canon', and not 'cannon'.

Two, yes it does. It reserves communion to the community of believers. You need to go read Acts.

Three, all the books of the bible were written within 60 years of Christ's death on a cross.

As quoted earlier in the thread - yes, it's the literal translation of Scripture. Yes, the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ.

Those who do not believe this should not take communion in the Catholic church.

I think you mean the New Testament... (or are using "were written within" to mean "were written by")

Yes, I meant the New Testament. Thanks for your correction!

Why?  As a Christian myself, I don't think anyone should be denied communion.  I believe it's he Catholic Church's business who they give it to, but Jesus gave Himself for everybody, and thus communion as a symbol is for everybody.  When He said, "Do this in remembrance of Me, " He didn't add, "unless you're pro-choice" or "unless you voted for Obama" or "unless you throw old ladies off of cliffs" or anything like that.  Jesus accepted everyone the way they were, and He always will.  Remember the words of Charlotte Elliot's old hymn, "Just As I Am".