Despair is one of the seven deadlies, and I'm not tempted to it, but I can understand why many orthodox Catholics want to withdraw from the world in disgust. One of two men who will be president is a Catholic who openly defies Catholic teaching and dares Church leaders to do something about it. Yet it looks like the shepherds will be as sheep once again:
Rev. John Ardis, director of the Paulist Center, said the Kerrys had received Communion [at the Paulist Center in Boston] and were always welcome to do so. Asked if he had been instructed not to offer Kerry Communion Ardis said: "No. Definitely not. I got a call from them (the archdiocese) an hour ago ... They wanted me to know that the archbishop has not taken a stand and he is free to receive the Eucharist."How long will we have to endure this? Why are people who try to keep the faith constantly marginalized, and powerful and arrogant men are accomodated?
If you've read my postings, you know that I believe Catholics should engage and transform the culture, not shun it. It would be nice if bishops would try harder to restrain the wolves among us who mislead the faithful into thinking that abortion and Catholicism can somehow be reconciled.
Here is a United States senator and presidential candidate who doesn't just look the other way if women procure abortions, he goes out of his way to make sure they do it. He even thinks it's okay to deliver a child partially and violently murder it by stabbing it in the head and sucking out his brains -- and he went out of his way to vote against prohibiting that type of murder.
This problem isn't going to go away. The bishops need to collectively correct John Kerry or people will continue to make excuses for attacks on innocent children. There are plenty of laity who are pointing this out, but it is bishops and priests who bear the primary responsibility for teaching the faith and protecting the faithful. Some of the clergy have begun to contend for the faith; others must join them. On my knees, I pray they will do their duty.
I kinda hope that sometime someone gives him the impression it's okay to receive Communion but that he is refused while going up to receive it, and then publicly rebuked for his public sin.
Actually despair is the eighth deadly sin (the seven being pride, anger, avarice, sloth, gluttony, envy, and lust), but I won't quibble.
You won't quibble because you're incorrect: there are seven deadly sins opposed to the seven capital virtues: don't you remember the movie "Seven"?
Eric,
There are only seven cardinal sins, and despair ain't one of them.
That last comment was directed at Eric Johnson, not so much at Eric Ewanco.
Excuse me, O Learned Ones, but despair is contrary to the virtue of hope and "Despair as such and as distinguished from a certain difference, sinking of the heart, or overweening dread is always a mortal sin." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04755a.htm)
Q. 1186. How may we be guilty of despair?
A. We may be guilty of despair by believing that we cannot resist certain temptations, overcome certain sins or amend our lives so as to be pleasing to God.
(http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-30.htm)
Coward, don't trifle with me. The virtue of patience runs thin in my soul lately.
I hope we're all prepared for the communion police to be standing up there to declare if each one of us is worthy to receive.
We need someone to make that judegment for us.
I mean, how long will I have to endure this? People who I think are not worthy being allowed to receive?
I'm tired of it.
How long, O Lord, how long?
Why should I have to endure other people whom I know are unworthy receiving?
Men who are guilty of working against the solemn teachings of the Faith -- and trumpeting that work as something worthy of praise -- and who openly challenge the successors of the apostles to correct them are in need of a good episcopal whacking. Justice demands it.
Mr. Gee, we're not talking about a rich man who, in my private opinion, does not give enough money to the poor. That may or may not be sinful. Beyond an inkling of a doubt, it is objectively sinful to mislead others about our responsibility to work for the protection of life, and Senator Kerry has a long record of voting in favor of legal abortion. Denying him the Eucharist will save him from committing sacrilege, and would be an act of mercy.
And we haven't even mentioned his second "marriage," which is, in all probability, invalid.
Kerry isn't pro-attacking innocent children; Kerry wants to keep D+X (partial birth abortion) legal so that in those very rare situations where the mother's life or health is in danger, it is a medical option, if the doctor so advises.
Also, the reason D+X (dilation and extration) most usually happens so late, at 30 weeks, is because certain abnormalities of the fetus are not detected until then. The fetus that is aborted with this method has no brain - only the base. Therefore it has reflexes that make it kick and move, but otherwise is not viable once separated from the mother.
Its cranium is swollen from fluid, and that's why it is difficult to pass through the cervix. The doctor Dilates the cervix as much as possible, and a tube is inserted into its cranium to Extract the fluid, to minimize the size of the head so that it can come out of the mother.
One could opt for a C-section which as a surgery, carries a little bit more risk to the mother's health. Once detached from the placenta, the baby will not be viable for a few days at the most. It is a heartwrenching ordeal for the parents, starting from the day they are told that the fetus is brain-dead in the womb, and only kept alive by its attachment of the umbilical cord.
Here's the definition of PBA from the Act:
---quote---
`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion--
`(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
`(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus;'
---end quote---
This language would not forbid a procedure to deliver the body of a child who had already died; or to deliver a brain-handicapped child alive; and would not prohibit a therapeutic intervention to remove excess fluid. It prohibits killing the child.