Kennedy: Barred from Communion

[RetiredGySgt]

Personally, I think the Church is way out of line here.

BULLSHIT. The church is VERY clear on its position about Abortion. If you want to participate in Church given sacrament that church has EVERY right and RESPONSIBILITY to make sure you deserve said sacrament based on the beliefs and requirements of said faith.

 

[AllieBaba]

I disagree. This is a private matter between Patrick Kennedy and the priest. The bishop had no business sharing it with the press, except for a political goal.

Nope, it is not between Kennedy and his priest. It is between Kennedy and the Church. Personally, I would like to see the Church taking a far tougher position on abortion. The Church is perfectly right to bar him - and any other Catholic politician - who votes for any pro abortion legislation.

That is not my point of disagreement. My point of disagreement, which is moot at this point, is such a personal matter being made public by the bishop and/or priest. IF that had been the case, the making of such a personal matter public is way out of line, IMO. But, it looks like Kennedy is the blabber in this particular case, so my point is moot.

Right!

 

[California Girl]

Personally, I think the Church is way out of line here.

It is absolutely the right of the Catholic Church to barr a member from receiving the sacriments. It happens whenever a member is deemed to be outside the teachings of the Church. It is Kennedy who is at fault, not the Church.

Now you understand why Jack Kennedy was the first Catholic to be elected president and why it was necessary for him to fly to Houston and address the Greater Houston Ministerial Association during the 1960 campaign...to assure the American people that America wouldn't be run from the Vatican...

Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

The Kennedys and abortion...what a JOKE...

John Jr. wanders away during a family photo session featuring all of the Kennedy children and the President. August 1963. The children, left to right: Kathleen Kennedy (holding Christopher Kennedy), Edward Kennedy Jr., Joseph P. Kennedy II, Kara Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., David Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, President Kennedy, Michael Kennedy, Courtney Kennedy, Kerry Kennedy, Bobby Shriver (holding Timothy Shriver ), Maria Shriver, Steve Smith Jr., Willie Smith, Christopher Lawford, Victoria Lawford, Sidney Lawford, Robin Lawford (in foreground- John F. Kennedy Jr.).

Do you ever manage to just make a fucking point without posting shedloads of shit?

 

[Si modo]

Personally, I think the Church is way out of line here.

BULLSHIT. The church is VERY clear on its position about Abortion. If you want to participate in Church given sacrament that church has EVERY right and RESPONSIBILITY to make sure you deserve said sacrament based on the beliefs and requirements of said faith.

But that is not my point, Gunny. My point was (which is now moot) the priest or bishop making a personal matter public.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeah, you're right. It's not the church, they're just being the church. The problem is Kennedy. He's the one who is using it for press.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Personally, I think the Church is way out of line here.

BULLSHIT. The church is VERY clear on its position about Abortion. If you want to participate in Church given sacrament that church has EVERY right and RESPONSIBILITY to make sure you deserve said sacrament based on the beliefs and requirements of said faith.

But that is not my point, Gunny. My point was (which is now moot) the priest or bishop making a personal matter public.

REREAD what you posted, Kennedy made it public not the Church. The Church responded AFTER the fact. YOU posted the story did you even read it?

 

[AllieBaba]

RGS, she admitted she was wrong about that point. More than once. She initially objected because she thought the church made it public, but when she saw that it wasn't the church that made it public, she withdrew her objection.

 

[JenyEliza]

Personally, I think the Church is way out of line here.

BULLSHIT. The church is VERY clear on its position about Abortion. If you want to participate in Church given sacrament that church has EVERY right and RESPONSIBILITY to make sure you deserve said sacrament based on the beliefs and requirements of said faith.

But that is not my point, Gunny. My point was (which is now moot) the priest or bishop making a personal matter public.

Simply.........


..................................Cringeworthy!

 

[JenyEliza]

RGS, she admitted she was wrong about that point. More than once. She initially objected because she thought the church made it public, but when she saw that it wasn't the church that made it public, she withdrew her objection.

Please post said withdrawal.

I don't see it.

Si Modo is still *very much* against what the Church has done here with Kennedy.

And Si Modo wasn't simply taking issue with "the Church" making this action public (which she finally, belatedly admits DID NOT HAPPEN).

She was taking issue with the ACTION ITSELF....

.....and she has NOT retracted.

Simply.....

.....................................Cringeworthy!!!

 

[California Girl]

BULLSHIT. The church is VERY clear on its position about Abortion. If you want to participate in Church given sacrament that church has EVERY right and RESPONSIBILITY to make sure you deserve said sacrament based on the beliefs and requirements of said faith.

But that is not my point, Gunny. My point was (which is now moot) the priest or bishop making a personal matter public.

Simply.........


..................................Cringeworthy!

In the interest of balance, you should note that Si modo withdrew from her comment once she realized that Kennedy made it public, not the church. That shows character. I think you should recognize that.

 

[JenyEliza]

Personally, I think the Church is way out of line here.

No mention of the Church making it public.

Appears to me that Si Modo is taking issue with the ACTION ITSELF.

.......please reveal said retraction of the above statement (if one exists at all...).

Thank you.

 

[JenyEliza]

But that is not my point, Gunny. My point was (which is now moot) the priest or bishop making a personal matter public.

Simply.........


..................................Cringeworthy!

In the interest of balance, you should note that Si modo withdrew from her comment once she realized that Kennedy made it public, not the church. That shows character. I think you should recognize that.

Please re-post. I haven't seen it. This thread is moving pretty fast...

Thanks.

 

[Zona]

The Church is picking a political fight it doesn't want to get into. Abortion is the law of the land. Attacking politicians for upholding the law is a no win.

Church policies like discriminating against women and homosexuals could be used to question tax exempt status. The church also opposes birth control. Are they going to start banning Catholics who practice birth control?

Good points....

Now back to the silly side, if this Kennedy was a kid toucher, I bet the church would have welcomed him with opened arms.

 

[AllieBaba]

Good lord, look at her last 3 posts. She said her objection, which was MOOT (which means no longer applies) was that the church had made it public and it should be between Kennedy and his priest (in this case, the bishop).

She admitted that she'd missed the part of the article which pointed out that Kennedy had made it public, and said her point was now MOOT, which means non-applicable.

 

[AllieBaba]

The Church is picking a political fight it doesn't want to get into. Abortion is the law of the land. Attacking politicians for upholding the law is a no win.

Church policies like discriminating against women and homosexuals could be used to question tax exempt status. The church also opposes birth control. Are they going to start banning Catholics who practice birth control?

Good points....

Now back to the silly side, if this Kennedy was a kid toucher, I bet the church would have welcomed him with opened arms.

The church didn't pick this fight, Kennedy did. The church has HISTORICALLY spoken out against abortion. Kennedy is openly Catholic, and yet insists on championing abortion.

And he is using the church to further his own agenda, not the other way around.

I'd say this is a fight Kennedy doesn't want to pick. Just as I'd love for Obama to take on the Catholic church, I'll find it equally amusing to watch Kennedy take them on. Perhaps the whole Kennedy clan will withdraw from the church, that would be entertaining. Would probably cut into a lot of their funding as well.

 

[JenyEliza]

Good lord, look at her last 3 posts. She said her objection, which was MOOT (which means no longer applies) was that the church had made it public and it should be between Kennedy and his priest (in this case, the bishop).

She admitted that she'd missed the part of the article which pointed out that Kennedy had made it public, and said her point was now MOOT, which means non-applicable.

I saw that "MOOT" part....I know what the fuck the word means dumbass.

I simply NEVER SAW HER SAY she agrees that the Church is within it's right to discipline Kennedy this way.

She said (and I quote):

Personally, I think the Church is way out of line here.

She needs to own the above statement, or clarify whether or not she agrees with the ACTION the church has taken. Or not.

She has not done that so far. Once she has, I will withdraw my objection to her post (or not), depending upon her actual position with regard to the Church's action in this matter.

GOOD FUCKIN GRIEF.

 

[California Girl]

Good lord, look at her last 3 posts. She said her objection, which was MOOT (which means no longer applies) was that the church had made it public and it should be between Kennedy and his priest (in this case, the bishop).

She admitted that she'd missed the part of the article which pointed out that Kennedy had made it public, and said her point was now MOOT, which means non-applicable.

I saw that "MOOT" part....I know what the fuck the word means dumbass.

I simply NEVER SAW HER SAY she agrees that the Church is within it's right to discipline Kennedy this way.

She said (and I quote):

Personally, I think the Church is way out of line here.

She needs to own the above statement, or clarify whether or not she agrees with the ACTION the church has taken. Or not.

She has not done that so far. Once she has, I will withdraw my objection to her post (or not), depending upon her actual position with regard to the Church's action in this matter.

GOOD FUCKIN GRIEF.

Jen, go back and read Si's post. As soon as she realized that the statement came from Kennedy, she withdrew her comment.

It is not for us to keep you up to speed, it is for you to make sure you get your facts straight, my friend.

However, the main point to this whole thing is this..... Tax Exemptions Must Remain For All Catholics!

 

[AllieBaba]

"That is not my point of disagreement. My point of disagreement, which is moot at this point, is such a personal matter being made public by the bishop and/or priest. IF that had been the case, the making of such a personal matter public is way out of line, IMO. But, it looks like Kennedy is the blabber in this particular case, so my point is moot."

That's the quote. She said the church had no business making it public.

 

[JenyEliza]

Good lord, look at her last 3 posts. She said her objection, which was MOOT (which means no longer applies) was that the church had made it public and it should be between Kennedy and his priest (in this case, the bishop).

She admitted that she'd missed the part of the article which pointed out that Kennedy had made it public, and said her point was now MOOT, which means non-applicable.

I saw that "MOOT" part....I know what the fuck the word means dumbass.

I simply NEVER SAW HER SAY she agrees that the Church is within it's right to discipline Kennedy this way.

She said (and I quote):

Personally, I think the Church is way out of line here.

She needs to own the above statement, or clarify whether or not she agrees with the ACTION the church has taken. Or not.

She has not done that so far. Once she has, I will withdraw my objection to her post (or not), depending upon her actual position with regard to the Church's action in this matter.

GOOD FUCKIN GRIEF.

Jen, go back and read Si's post. As soon as she realized that the statement came from Kennedy, she withdrew her comment.

It is not for us to keep you up to speed, it is for you to make sure you get your facts straight, my friend.

However, the main point to this whole thing is this..... Tax Exemptions Must Remain For All Catholics!

See, I'm not getting how the whole "Personally, I think the Church is way out of line here" translates into it being about the Church supposedly blabbing.

I think the larger issue is that Si Modo has never clarified specifically WHAT the Church was out of line on.

She tried the face-saving move of, oh, it was Kennedy blabbing, I withdraw my statement.

But I believe she truly meant the action the Church took against Kennedy.

Does she or does she not agree with that? She's told us she is not a "non-Catholic". So apparently she has more than a Democratic dog in this race.

WHAT is her position on the "out of line" part? WHAT are they "out of line" on?

The action? (Banning Kennedy from Communion?)

I believe that is the case, although there are way too many practicing Catholics in this thread to make it comfortable or permissible for her to admit.

And, of course, it goes without saying. NO TAXES FOR CATHOLICS!

 

[AllieBaba]

I saw that "MOOT" part....I know what the fuck the word means dumbass.

I simply NEVER SAW HER SAY she agrees that the Church is within it's right to discipline Kennedy this way.

She said (and I quote):



She needs to own the above statement, or clarify whether or not she agrees with the ACTION the church has taken. Or not.

She has not done that so far. Once she has, I will withdraw my objection to her post (or not), depending upon her actual position with regard to the Church's action in this matter.

GOOD FUCKIN GRIEF.

Jen, go back and read Si's post. As soon as she realized that the statement came from Kennedy, she withdrew her comment.

It is not for us to keep you up to speed, it is for you to make sure you get your facts straight, my friend.

However, the main point to this whole thing is this..... Tax Exemptions Must Remain For All Catholics!

See, I'm not getting how the whole "Personally, I think the Church is way out of line here" translates into it being about the Church supposedly blabbing.

I think the larger issue is that Si Modo has never clarified specifically WHAT the Church was out of line on.

She tried the face-saving move of, oh, it was Kennedy blabbing, I withdraw my statement.

But I believe she truly meant the action the Church took against Kennedy.

Does she or does she not agree with that? She's told us she is not a "non-Catholic". So apparently she has more than a Democratic dog in this race.

WHAT is her position on the "out of line" part? WHAT are they "out of line" on?

The action? (Banning Kennedy from Communion?)

I believe that is the case, although there are way too many practicing Catholics in this thread to make it comfortable or permissible for her to admit.

And, of course, it goes without saying. NO TAXES FOR CATHOLICS!

What the hell are you on about? You're making no sense. You're arguing against a point that was never made, and trying to attribute an argument to Si Modo that she never made.

Give it up. She thought it was wrong that the church went public, then realized it didn't. That was the whole of her objection. She's a Catholic. Although she didn't state she agrees with the church's action, I REALLY doubt you're going to get her to say it was out of it's authority to do exactly what it did.