|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: +Bishop Egan and communion
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
His Lordship the Bishop of Portsmouth has opined that Catholic MPs who voted for SSM should be denied communion.
Now there's a good way to ensure constituents avoid voting for prospective Catholic MPs.
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I know that denying communion to politicians for their public acts is contentious for some, but I'm always reminded of St. Ambrose who made an emperor repent. Politicians are answerable to God for their public acts too.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Ad Orientum: quote:
I know that denying communion to politicians for their public acts is contentious for some, but I'm always reminded of St. Ambrose who made an emperor repent. Politicians are answerable to God for their public acts too.
We can't be absolutely sure what positions God wants from the RC MPs, but everyone will know what their bishops want. And everyone will know that those MPs will not take their constituents' opinions under consideration in matters that the Roman Catholic hierarchy has ruled on for them if they take the bishops' threats under advisement.
When I'm assured that the Bishop of Portsmouth is as holy and in tune with God as St. Ambrose, I'll reconsider my repugnance for the idea.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I know that denying communion to politicians for their public acts is contentious for some, but I'm always reminded of St. Ambrose who made an emperor repent.
This would be the Ambrose who made the emperor desist from compensating Jews after Christians burned their synagogue down?
Who encouraged emperors to persecute Christian (heretics) who didn't agree with him?
Not the best role model then.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Christendom eh? What worse than Godless scum we are.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
It may just be me but I hear the distinctive clip-clop of a horse disappearing into the distance whilst the stable door bangs in the breeze.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
His Lordship the Bishop of Portsmouth has opined that Catholic MPs who voted for SSM should be denied communion.
Now there's a good way to ensure constituents avoid voting for prospective Catholic MPs.
There are some denominations that expect their members to stay out of party politics, and you can see why; it prevents members from getting into all sorts of trouble. Sooner or later, a religious politician will either have to go against the teachings of their church, or cause offence to other politicians and/or the general public for going against commonly accepted mores that the religious politician doesn't accept.
That aside, I'm hoping that this bishop originally communicated his feelings privately. Excommunication in the RCC is surely a spiritual matter for the individual and their church leadership, not for secular commentators and a bunch of angry Protestants.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Not sex again! How's this lordship doing with Matt 25:35-36?
"For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’"
Just asking.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
While we await the knacker's cart...
The Evangelical Group of the General Synod of the CofE, including The Rt Rev. the [Anglican] Lord Bishop of Winchester, has also opined that quote:
appropriate sacramental discipline should apply to those who choose to enter into any sexual relationship other than within marriage between a man and a woman.
Now there's a good way to keep the Church free of defilement.
[Not sure if the thread is going end up discussing religious politicians or sacramental discipline]
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
While we await the knacker's cart...
{rings hostly bell. Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead!}
Actually, I'm still waiting for the same answer as you. If this thread turns out to be about religious politicians and/or sacramental discipline then it has a chance of staying here. If it focuses on same-sex marriage, then it is Dead Horses bound. We watch and wait.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Three thoughts on this, all on the non-DH aspect.
1. I think the legislation is already gone through. If a bishop wishes to threaten MPs who are his own faithful with ecclesiastical sanctions if they vote contrary to his understanding of the faith, then it seems to me that he has got to get his point across to them before the vote, and not after. Once they've voted, it is too late to censure them for not voting in accordance with his wishes. That's my view anyway.
2. Has he got any jurisdiction even over RC MPs unless they actually live in his diocese?
3. Might this be a breach of one of the bits of legislation from the 1520s– 30s, Praemunire or something - the one about the Bishop of Rome having no jurisdiction in this country? Or possibly the one in the C19 about RC bishoprics, and the accusations about 'papal agression'? Could a catholic bishop trying to influence how legislators exercise their functions, rather than leaving it to their own consciences, be construed as an attempt to circumvent this?
He can express his personal views, but he isn't doing that. He's attempting to influence how some Members of Parliament vote by using his spiritual sanctions.
Irrespective of one's views on the DH aspect of this legislation, I don't think that 's on.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I think it might fall foul of the 1393 (?) statute.
Technically, an RC bishop can only threaten the MP with being barred from communion in his own diocese: since the quasi acceptance of the Vatican as a sovereign state it should be that any global excommunication should come from Rome to HM Government and then be communicated to the potential excommunicant as/if they think fit.
Can't you just hear the combination of howls of derision and yells of indignation if that were to be tried? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I know that denying communion to politicians for their public acts is contentious for some, but I'm always reminded of St. Ambrose who made an emperor repent.
This would be the Ambrose who made the emperor desist from compensating Jews after Christians burned their synagogue down?
Who encouraged emperors to persecute Christian (heretics) who didn't agree with him?
Not the best role model then.
St. Jerome is a good model. Is it right that a Christian emperor should help build a synagogue of satan?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I know that denying communion to politicians for their public acts is contentious for some, but I'm always reminded of St. Ambrose who made an emperor repent.
This would be the Ambrose who made the emperor desist from compensating Jews after Christians burned their synagogue down?
Who encouraged emperors to persecute Christian (heretics) who didn't agree with him?
Not the best role model then.
St. Jerome is a good model. Is it right that a Christian emperor should help build a synagogue of satan?
So you think that Christians should be allowed to burn down Synagogues with impunity. Glad we got that one sorted out. You traditionalists are like the Bourbons. You have forgotten nothing and learned absolutely nothing at all. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I know that denying communion to politicians for their public acts is contentious for some, but I'm always reminded of St. Ambrose who made an emperor repent.
This would be the Ambrose who made the emperor desist from compensating Jews after Christians burned their synagogue down?
Who encouraged emperors to persecute Christian (heretics) who didn't agree with him?
Not the best role model then.
St. Jerome is a good model. Is it right that a Christian emperor should help build a synagogue of satan?
Anti-semitism is the Satanic thing in this case.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
gog
Shipmate
# 15615
|
Posted
The issue like this is explored in the West Wing, when Santos is running for office and a Bishop would refuse him communion if he comes to church, due to the views he has expressed.
I see that the balance here is between the personal conscience, and the keeping to the doctrines and teachings of the Church in which one is a member.
So do we know more than the church is the question I think...
Posts: 103 | From: somewhere over the border | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I know that denying communion to politicians for their public acts is contentious for some, but I'm always reminded of St. Ambrose who made an emperor repent.
This would be the Ambrose who made the emperor desist from compensating Jews after Christians burned their synagogue down?
Who encouraged emperors to persecute Christian (heretics) who didn't agree with him?
Not the best role model then.
St. Jerome is a good model. Is it right that a Christian emperor should help build a synagogue of satan?
So you think that Christians should be allowed to burn down Synagogues with impunity. Glad we got that one sorted out. You traditionalists are like the Bourbons. You have forgotten nothing and learned absolutely nothing at all.
I never said that. St. Jerome, I believe, said that the act if burning down was wrong but that rebuilding was wrong too.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Anyone who has come across me on other threads will know that I don't exactly believe in 'Christian emperors' and would regard Christians who burn other people's places of worship as very mistaken and disobedient Christians.
If such 'Christians' did burn a synagogue, the Jews should be compensated, by those responsible or by the government, and fully allowed to rebuild. A government that failed to compensate would be, well, stretching charity to call it 'Christian' even if such a government were allowed by the NT.
Another example of the difficulties of Christian involvement in the state....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
As an American, this has an odd inverted quality to it. The issue of a Catholic politician obeying the Church rather than his electorate was resolved when John F Kennedy won the presidency.
One of the theories being presented now is that the reasons that church attendance in the US has follow off in recent decades is that many of the religious denominations appear to be part of one political party on various dead horse issues.
Things seem oddly reversed in England. You already have had the attendance drop. Is any major UK Party leaping in to make anti-same sex marriage an issue on religious grounds?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It may well be the case to some extent with other churches as well, but the Roman Catholic church in particular seems unable to conceive of a true separation of church and state.
Catholic politicians sitting in a legislature are making laws for the entire land - Christians and non-Christians alike, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Certain church leaders seem quite unable to comprehend that it is not automatically the job of a politician who is also a church member to impose church doctrine on the entire population of the land.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I know that denying communion to politicians for their public acts is contentious for some, but I'm always reminded of St. Ambrose who made an emperor repent.
This would be the Ambrose who made the emperor desist from compensating Jews after Christians burned their synagogue down?
Who encouraged emperors to persecute Christian (heretics) who didn't agree with him?
Not the best role model then.
St. Jerome is a good model. Is it right that a Christian emperor should help build a synagogue of satan?
So you think that Christians should be allowed to burn down Synagogues with impunity. Glad we got that one sorted out. You traditionalists are like the Bourbons. You have forgotten nothing and learned absolutely nothing at all.
I never said that. St. Jerome, I believe, said that the act if burning down was wrong but that rebuilding was wrong too.
If a Christian community burns down a Synagogue and are not forced to pay compensation or rebuild it or, otherwise, suffer any kind of sanction they have burned it down with impunity. That is the meaning of the word. The idea that it can be wrong to attack a place of worship but that the wrongness thereof cannot contain an obligation to make restitution is incoherent.
In any event, describing a Jewish place of worship as a "synagogue of Satan" may have been understandable in the context of St. John the Divine. After the centuries of Christian anti-Semitism, the Shoah and in a twenty-first century context when Synagogues in Europe routinely have to have notices on their walls so that the volunteers who help out there know what to do in the event of a mail bomb; it is pretty much an announcement that the person who uses the phrase is... well, I'm not sure that the rules of Purgatory allow me to spell it out explicitly. But do feel free to spell out the words Semitic, Tosser and Anti into a well known phrase or saying. Hyphen optional.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Is any major UK Party leaping in to make anti-same sex marriage an issue on religious grounds?
No. The right-wing UK Independence Party (whose major goal is the UK's departure from the EU) was initially against SSM, but it's leader, Nigel Farage, has said that the party wouldn't overturn SSM if it came to power. UKIP doesn't have a particularly religious agenda.
Some smaller parties have been set up along specifically evangelical Christian lines, but they haven't generated much media interest or any kind of popular following. Most people would be far more aware of the Respect Party, a smallish left-wing party that's attracted a certain Muslim following in some parts of the country.
The extreme right-wing British National Party has occasionally tried to identify itself with 'Christian values', but this hasn't worked well; the party's macho, thuggish, racist image doesn't sit well with the caring, respectable and (in large towns and cities) increasingly multicultural nature of British churches. The BNP disapproves of SSM, but I doubt that this has helped them build any bridges....
As for the major parties, they've all benefited from early Christian influences, weighted either towards the CofE or the Nonconformists. But secularisation has reduced this impact. Every now and then their leaders assert that faith is of value to the nation, but they can't make too much of this. Not only would it upset the non-religious, but it would seem hypocritical to the faith groups, who are aware that today's party leaders aren't especially religious men.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... Catholic politicians sitting in a legislature are making laws for the entire land - Christians and non-Christians alike, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Certain church leaders seem quite unable to comprehend that it is not automatically the job of a politician who is also a church member to impose church doctrine on the entire population of the land.
That isn't quite the issue. We do expect MPs to follow their own consciences in what that they vote for and against. This can, and very properly does, mean them taking into account their belief systems. What we don't expect is some extra-parliamentary third party, be it a bishop, a union boss, an old school chum or their spouse to dictate to them how they shall vote, and to threaten sanctions on them if they disobey. At that point it ceases to be a matter of their own conscience and becomes improper influence.
[ 22. March 2014, 22:24: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... who are aware that today's party leaders aren't especially religious men.
Or women.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I don't have my Erskine May handy, but isn't there here a question of privilege, related to influencing or menacing of members of the House of Commons?
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
To my mind, part of 'Christian duty' in the realm of a nations politics would be to ensure that the rights and protections necessary for the minorities (who democratically speaking would not necessarily have a big enough voice to enact any change) in any society be upheld; even when they fly in the face of personal moral obligation. It would seem to me that part of the central Christian message consists of being 'for' the 'other'. Of course, if your sole aim in going into politics was not to benefit the harmonious growth of community and mutual benefit, but rather the establishment of a Christian State, then that's a whole other issue.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What we don't expect is some extra-parliamentary third party, be it a bishop, a union boss, an old school chum or their spouse to dictate to them how they shall vote, and to threaten sanctions on them if they disobey. At that point it ceases to be a matter of their own conscience and becomes improper influence.
Exactly - and His Lordship the Bishop of Portsmouth should be told this in no uncertain terms. A good thing he doesn't sit in the House of Lords!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
As I am about to disagree with everyone, perhaps I should start by saying that I am not Catholic.
For a Catholic the most important source for the formation of the conscience should be the teaching of the church. The question of how the church should respond to Catholics in any profession who use such influence as they have in opposition to the church's teaching, is a legitimate concern for a Catholic bishop.
The bishop of Portsmouth did not direct his remarks to specific individuals nor make them at a time when a contentious vote was about to happen, so I don't think it's reasonable to say that he was trying to influence an outcome improperly.
[ 23. March 2014, 11:00: Message edited by: moonlitdoor ]
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Continuing to skirt the Dead Horses.
moonlitdoor, you have a point, but I want to illustrate the problems of your point by a fact from the life of a US Catholic Supreme Court Judge, who was on the court during the Roe v Wade deliberations.
William Brennan was a powerful lobbyist for Roe v Wade and worked very hard behind the scenes to help the hesitant Harry Blackmun complete his opinion. At one stage (according to Bob Woodward's account in "The Brethren"' his riveting book about the Supreme Court in the Burger era) Blackmun was so grateful that he encouraged Brennan to become co-author of the opinion, but Brennan 'modestly' declined. He was very much aware of the difference between his own conscience and the teaching of the church and wished to 'minimise the waves' by minimising public awareness of his personal involvement.
The relationship between the teaching of the church and the consciences of Catholics who hold public office is a complex one. Brennan was an excellent Supreme Court Judge, and generally reckoned to be a very good man, but I suppose such actions made him a less than good Catholic. What was made public was that Brennan joined Blackmun's opinion. What he said to his confessor or bishop is of course bound by the confessional seal.
No bishop owns the votes of people in public office and actions which suggest an attempt to control their hearts and minds by such public pronouncements seem very likely to be counter-productive. There are issues of pastoral guidance and confession to be worked through, individual by individual, in confidence. The bishop cannot duck that. Nor can the public figure. I suggest that the bishop has politicised a matter of conscience and church discipline. He has publicly polarised what should be resolved pastorally. That won't work.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
Also, excommunication is not so much a punishment, as a recognition of a state outside of the orthodox that an individual has placed himself in, for the benefit of that individual and for those who might otherwise mistake their views/acts as according with Catholic teaching.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
As I am about to disagree with everyone, perhaps I should start by saying that I am not Catholic.
For a Catholic the most important source for the formation of the conscience should be the teaching of the church. The question of how the church should respond to Catholics in any profession who use such influence as they have in opposition to the church's teaching, is a legitimate concern for a Catholic bishop.
The bishop of Portsmouth did not direct his remarks to specific individuals nor make them at a time when a contentious vote was about to happen, so I don't think it's reasonable to say that he was trying to influence an outcome improperly.
But what if MPs, whilst being committed to their Catholic faith, believe that the RCC is in error and that by their actions they are obeying God Himself? Surely God takes precedence over even the Church's teachings?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Also, excommunication is not so much a punishment, as a recognition of a state outside of the orthodox that an individual has placed himself in, for the benefit of that individual and for those who might otherwise mistake their views/acts as according with Catholic teaching.
Invictus, 'tell that to the Marines', or more politely, are you sure that is even theoretically correct? If a person is excommunicated, they are being told they may not receive communion. It is saying that they have not just sinned, but are barred from the means of grace which they may need to climb back up the ladder.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade
But what if MPs, whilst being committed to their Catholic faith, believe that the RCC is in error and that by their actions they are obeying God Himself? Surely God takes precedence over even the Church's teachings?
Jade, I'm not an RC, but am under the impression that RCs are supposed to believe that in the formal sense the RCC cannot be in error, is preserved from being, that the notion there could be a difference between conforming to church teaching and obeying God is an impossibility. However, I've also got the impression over the years that the RCC attaches enormous importance to a person's individual conscience. It often seems to occupy an even higher role in ethics and moral theology than it does among Protestants. And infallible authority doesn't even apply to every word of the Pope, yet alone the utterances of individual bishops.
Encroaching on DH territory for the moment, it would be very hard for any MP, whether Catholic or Protestant to maintain with any credibility that God had told them they MUST on pain of their immortal soul, vote for same sex marriage. You wouldn't believe them and nor would I. This is a matter of statecraft, proportionality, expedience, party loyalty, choosing which battles to fight, which to let slide, and Orfeo's point, to what extent as a politician, you feel that those who don't share your opinions should be required nevertheless to live by them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Surely God takes precedence over even the Church's teachings?
The technical term for that view is 'Protestantism' and it was declared a heresy by the Roman Catholic Church in the sixteenth century.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
You can read some of the bishop's remarks in context here at lifesitenews.
He too says that it is not a punishment but an act of mercy so I think that probably is the official stance.
In answer to Jade Constable, I was not criticising the MPs. By my standards they have done nothing wrong. I was just disagreeing with the proposition that the bishop has tried to exert improper influence on them. If he had approached particular MPs before a vote on same sex marriage or abortion, and told them that he would withhold communion from them unless they voted in a certain way, then I would agree that might be improper.
But addressing the matter in general terms at a time when no votes are pending seems to me to be confining himself to the question of how the church responds to members who are in active opposition to some of its teachings. That I see as a proper question for a bishop to speak about, whether I agree with him or not.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
...and Orfeo's point, to what extent as a politician, you feel that those who don't share your opinions should be required nevertheless to live by them.
This is an important point, IMO. Believing this or that action / behaviour is wrong in the eyes of God is not the same as believing it should be illegal and thus proposals to make it legal should be voted against.
Or does the RCC explicitly say that any action / behaviour contrary to RCC teaching should be illegal? It doesn't say that, does it?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Not sex again! How's this lordship doing with Matt 25:35-36?
"For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’"
Just asking.
Real life alert - I am Bishop Egan's Oeconomus and also chief officer of the Portsmouth Diocesan Trust - in Anglican terms I am both Diocesan Secretary and Diocesan Treasurer.
No Prophet, he's doing pretty well on that score, actually. He's established a Caritas social action agency to encourage, enable and oversee the Catholic Church's response to need and deprivation within the diocese, devoting human, physical and financial resources towards the work. He's rebalanced clergy and lay resources to provide more prison, hospital and school chaplaincy. He's launched a follow-up to Pope Benedict's "Year of Faith", with a diocesan "Year of Faith in Action" focussed on work with the poor, marginalised and deprived. He's reinvigorated the diocesan link with the Archdiocese of Bamenda, Cameroon, diverting diocesan resources into educational and developiment projects there. He has elevated the profile and increased the allocation of human, physical and financial resources to projects within the diocese working with migrants, trafficked sex workers and merchant seamen. There is more, much more to do but all this in seventeen months. I think it reasonable to say that, even though these initiatives and decisions have nearly doubled my workload, hence the infrequent posting here, he can't be criticised for talking about sex whilst ignoring the widow, the orphan and the stranger in our midst.
As for suggestions by others, such as Enoch, of improper influence: I wonder if you aren't looking down the wrong end of the telescope. This isn't about a threat: it's about spelling out the ecclesial and sacramental consequences of the actions of individuals who are subject to the Bishop's episkope: his pastoral care. If a Catholic acts in a manner - justified by whatever political theory you like - which constitutes formal co-operation with grave moral evil, then s/he is not permitted to receive Holy Communion until s/he has repented of the act and been sacramentally reconciled with the Church. If the formal co-operation is public then, because of the danger of scandal (i.e. leading others to believe that an evil act is good) then that repentance must also be public. For the Catholic MP, this means that voting this way or that might have ecclesial and sacramental consequences. In Catholic teaching, receiving Holy Communion when in such a state has profoundly harmful effects on the spiritual well-being of the individual. It is one of the duties of the Bishop to oversee the sacramental life of the diocese and to teach and guide those in it, to lead them to truth and to protect them from error. That is what Bishop Egan has done. If that constitutes an offence against English Law - which I doubt - then so what? There are a number of Catholic MPs in the diocese: some voted for SSM, so it is a real, live issue for Bishop Egan.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
In any event, describing a Jewish place of worship as a "synagogue of Satan" may have been understandable in the context of St. John the Divine. After the centuries of Christian anti-Semitism, the Shoah and in a twenty-first century context when Synagogues in Europe routinely have to have notices on their walls so that the volunteers who help out there know what to do in the event of a mail bomb; it is pretty much an announcement that the person who uses the phrase is... well, I'm not sure that the rules of Purgatory allow me to spell it out explicitly. But do feel free to spell out the words Semitic, Tosser and Anti into a well known phrase or saying. Hyphen optional.
You can describe opinions as anti-Semitic in Purgatory. You can't describe the authors of those opinions as tossers. You know this. Stop it.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
Has this Bishop forgotten the virtue of Charity ? Maybe he should rethink such threats as being made . Besides has he not heard of seperation of church & state ?
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
As I am about to disagree with everyone, perhaps I should start by saying that I am not Catholic.
For a Catholic the most important source for the formation of the conscience should be the teaching of the church. The question of how the church should respond to Catholics in any profession who use such influence as they have in opposition to the church's teaching, is a legitimate concern for a Catholic bishop.
The bishop of Portsmouth did not direct his remarks to specific individuals nor make them at a time when a contentious vote was about to happen, so I don't think it's reasonable to say that he was trying to influence an outcome improperly.
Point taken, I think.
But then, why would any non-RC voter ever vote for an RC candidate (of any party). +Egan's position effectively justifies those who, through the last couple of centuries, claimed that voting for RC candidates was the same as voting for a separate party controlled from a certain city state in Italy, since all RC MPs, in theory at least would vote against the party on whose behalf they were elected, if the said city state disagreed with its policies.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I don't know about UK law but in Canada, should a prelate threaten or present penalties against a Member of the House of Commons in an attempt to influence their vote in the House, they are likely guilty of a breach of privilege (chapter 3 of the 2009 edition of House of Commons Procedures) should the House find them so. It would depend how a bishop presents the penalty, or if denial of communion be considered a penalty, and what a vote of the House thinks, making it a potential offence rather than an easily identifiable one. If memory serves me well, there is some case law from the 1880s on this, related to an excommunication by Msgr Bourget, then Bishop of Montréal, related to a funeral, but I've not been able to dig it up.
I know that there were blogosphere mutterings about this when Parliament passed laws respecting same-sex marriages, but it died out quickly, so might have just been vapourous effusions.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
But then, why would any non-RC voter ever vote for an RC candidate (of any party).
There are, I think, plenty of people who would differ from Rome over matters of doctrine, but not over matters of morality, and how that morality should inform legislation.
The position of the Roman Catholic church on the dead horse subjects, for example, is well known. Surely I should expect a prospective MP who was a Roman Catholic to hold the "party line" on those subjects - or are you suggesting that I should assume that a Catholic politician was automatically a bad Catholic?
[In the case of a supreme court judge, there's more wriggle room - at least in theory, the job of the judge is to decide what the law actually says, and not to decide what the law should say.]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
President John F. Kennedy's address to a group of Protestant ministers who worried whether he would, if elected, toe Rome's line is instructive and inspiring:
quote:
Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with . . . what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
... Besides has he not heard of separation of church & state ?
Church and state are not separate in England, but his ecclesial community is separate and is not the one to which the state is linked.
Trisagion, thank you for your helpful contribution. I don't think it's so much looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope, so much as the telescope looks different whether it's you who are looking through it, or you are looking at someone else who is looking through it. Irrespective of how you see things if you are looking through it, we're saying that if you aren't looking through it, and can see the surrounding terrain, this looks irresistibly like an attempt to interfere improperly with the workings of Parliament. It may not be the intention, but it has that effect.
As I've said earlier, I'm perfectly happy with an RC MP saying they voted against the legalisation of same sex marriage because they are a Catholic. That's the same as if they say they voted against it because they are CofE, Baptist, or just think it's wrong. I'd rather have MPs who are prepared to put their consciences above party diktat. What's improper is their voting that way 'because the bishop has told them to', or because he has told them that unless they do, they will be excluded from the sacraments. However one dresses this up, it is 'vote as I tell you or your immortal soul will be in peril of damnation'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In the case of a supreme court judge, there's more wriggle room - at least in theory, the job of the judge is to decide what the law actually says, and not to decide what the law should say.
That may well have been Brennan's public defence of course; one could assert that Blackmun had correctly interpreted and applied the Constitution. Except that in practice it was Brennan who gave crucial advice to Blackmun about how the constitutional arguments could be marshalled to achieve the end result.
Blackmun made a mess of the drafting and the arguments, the final document took ages to produce and involved a lot of internal negotiation and compromise, and there has been a good deal of justified subsequent criticism about the legal quality of the opinion.
My point is that Brennan knew very well that his real opinion on the issue was at variance with the church's teaching and decided that he could not, at the time, argue that overtly. He did his best to ride both horses.
On the issue in question here, surely the real argument in the exercise of pastoral care is the need to sort out the issues of both protection and discipline on a case by case basis, having due regard to pastoral confidentiality.
Elected representatives are not delegates and do not just represent Catholics. To draw from Kennedy's remarks, they are representatives who are Catholic, not Catholic representatives. Priests and bishops will undoubtedly recognise the tensions this may produce. For me at least, that implies that there is a distinction between making general pronouncements and direct, or implied, finger-pointing at folks with representative roles.
Unless this is recognised as a fact of democratic life and proclaimed publicly by church representatives, the kind of suspicions voiced in this thread are given aid and comfort. I do not want to see any Catholics who stand for public office disadvantaged by this kind of suspicion. In UK constituency terms, prospective representatives need to be free to proclaim the two truths; that they are people of belief and conscience and they will represent the interests of all their constituents. Do a "Kennedy" in other words.
[ 24. March 2014, 10:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In UK constituency terms, prospective representatives need to be free to proclaim the two truths; that they are people of belief and conscience and they will represent the interests of all their constituents. Do a "Kennedy" in other words.
+Egan is my bishop, and I'm delighted that he has spoken clearly on this issue. I'm also delighted that Trisagion is involved in his administration.
The suggestion that MPs represent "the interests of all their constituents" is clearly bollocks in terms of the varied interests that those constituents would list themselves. We know this, simply because those interests are massively at odds with each other in many cases, making it absolutely impossible to represent them all equally and concurrently. This can only mean something like the MP not excluding any constituent from their care a priori, but still according according to what the MP thinks are the constituents' overall interests. But then that of course that pretty much allows any evaluation of their interests by the MP. And that hardly is a surprise, given that all MPs do many things that many of their constituents will be really unhappy about. All this doesn't suddenly change just because an MP is motivated by religion.
The horrible statement of Kennedy, quoted above, is certainly no ideal that one should propose to follow. Kennedy simply threw his RCism under the bus in order to get into political power in a Protestant country. His sophistry in that declaration hinges on pretending that his "conscience" is some kind of free and impartial dispenser of morality and wisdom. That's of course nonsense. Conscience is formed, and if his conscience was in fact free of RC religious pressures or dictates, and not shaped by RC power or threat of punishment, then he simply wasn't a real RC at all. Whereas if his conscience was formed by all those, then he was simply lying and in fact prepared to act against what his conscience told him to be in the national interest. Most likely it was a mixture of the two, i.e., a lukewarm / cultural RC selling out any remaining hold that his religion has on him to obtain political power.
If people of certain religious convictions are "not electable", then that is just too bad. I am however somewhat mystified why this is a big issue. Say that I really like a Muslim candidate for most of his views and policies, but am put off by his suggestion that all meat in the UK has to become halal. Why would I not vote for this person? The chance that he will a law passed that makes all meat in the UK halal is basically zero. Unless for some reason a majority of MPs share his opinion. And this is entirely unlikely by chance, it would presumably mean that the UK has become a country where the majority of voters are Muslim. In which case this kind of law seems fair enough, really.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Not sex again! How's this lordship doing with Matt 25:35-36?
"For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’"
Just asking.
Wait, what?
Either the bishop is correct or he's not correct with regard to his opinion. How is his response to the above relevant to that point?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If people of certain religious convictions are "not electable", then that is just too bad. I am however somewhat mystified why this is a big issue.
Being RC, I would not be able to hold public office. I don't see how you can compel people through legislation to live in a way that is only possible through grace. And I don't see how an MP can vote with their conscience, but at the same time say "I don't actually want this to be passed as law because I don't think I have a mandate to compel everyone to believe what I believe". So it would be an impossible position.
I don't think anyone's the worse off for me not being an MP.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Say that I really like a Muslim candidate for most of his views and policies, but am put off by his suggestion that all meat in the UK has to become halal. Why would I not vote for this person?
But you've chosen a weak issue. Do you object to eating halal?
Supposing he wants all women to be veiled. Would you still be happy to have him as your MP on the grounds that there'll never be a majority of MPs who think that? Or would the point that his thinking on the matter is *wrong* be an issue for you?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... The suggestion that MPs represent "the interests of all their constituents" is clearly bollocks in terms of the varied interests that those constituents would list themselves. ...
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Being RC, I would not be able to hold public office. ...
I'm not sure which of those statements is the more depressing nonsense of the two.
It is a very fundamental point, to be fought for vigorously on every occasion, that once elected, MPs represent all their constituents and not just those who voted for them or their party constituency organisation. The same applies to the government as a whole.
As for the suggestion that if you are a Roman Catholic, you are either barred from public office or you bar yourself, the Exclusive Brethren and the JWs may think like that. Everybody else does not. It is clear from his writings that Pope Francis does not. It is also going back on an important piece of legislation from 1829.
You are entitled to say, and may say with good reason, that you do not think it is your calling to go into politics. You can even say, and I will respect you if you do, that you think the temptations and tensions involved would be too difficult for you as Erroneous Monk to manage. You cannot say that it is incompatible with the calling of others. This matters.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
