During Kerry's campaign in 2004, the archbishop Raymond Burke refused to give communion to the senator. Now, he's speaking out about Rudy Giuliani.
This candidate is not only Republican, but Catholic as well. Kerry was a Democrat, which would probably explain by itself why the church may not like him and his way of thinking. But Giuliani is a Catholic - practicing or not. His reputation precedes him as maybe not such a nice guy. However, do priests in high positions have the right to deny worship to people they don't agree with? Wouldn't that be mostly everybody?
In terms of my own background knowledge, Catholic priests typically do not give communion to non-Catholics. This isn't an insult necessarily, it's really just tradition. If any Christian or non-Catholic would go to Catholic mass, they would just not get communion as they would in their own place of worship.
Int his case, the archbishop has decided to deny communion to those politicians with policies he does not agree with. So with him, it's less about the religious traditions so much as the political thoughts of people. Which definitely falls into mixing church with state.
It is a bit of a stretch, obviously, but does this guy have the right to deny someone from their worship just because they favor the death penalty or abortion rights?
Giuliani responded to the archbishop by saying that this country has freedom of religion and the religious leader can say what he wants. The problem is, that this implies that religious leaders can have the freedom to do other things- like the preacher who decided to marry homosexual couples. Dangerous? Maybe.
But what is the real harm in priests choosing to deny Catholic members of the church who simply disagree with politics of the church leaders. The politics specifically with Giuliani - abortion rights.
Quick history lesson: many think that the Catholic church has always been against abortion. Not true.
Early in the church, abortion was okay. It was at one point preferred. Under Pope Innocent III, abortions were fine as long as the fetus made no movement yet. If it was early enough, the baby was not a "soul" and therefore there was no killing. It is interesting to note that this case was actually of a monk who wanted his lover to get an abortion.
Soon after they made very specific rules about how late it was okay to get an abortion. All in all, very early in the church abortion was officially tolerated by the Vatican. It was not until the 17th century that abortion became "murder".
So, now that the archbishop Raymond Burke doesn't want politicians who believe differently about abortions, how far are they taking this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Wow, I didn't hear about this one. That is very crazy. A sure sign of mixing state and the church. I don't know that much about Catholicism, but I did think it was an accepting religion. I mean obviously you have to have been baptized and what not, but if you're part of the faith I don't understand how they can reject you. I'm sure there are PLENTY of people who believe in abortion and what not but are still heavily involved in their faith. You don't have to abide by EVERY single part of the religion, that's my opinion at least. And please, Giuliani is just saying that the priest is in the right because of freedom of religion in order to appeal to the public. Inside I bet he's seathing. It's always about the politics.
Post a Comment