Skip to main content

Cardinal Burke claims Pelosi should be denied communion

Cardinal Raymond Burke - head of the highest court at the Vatican - recently made the following remarks about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is herself a Catholic:

"Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied. This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin - cooperating with the crime of procured abortion - and still professes to be a devout Catholic.

This is a prime example of what Blessed John Paul II referred to as the situation of Catholics who have divorced their faith from their public life and therefore are not serving their brothers and sisters in the way that they must - in safeguarding and promoting the life of the innocent and defenseless unborn, in safeguarding and promoting the integrity of marriage and the family."

On the site Catholic Answers, this question was posed: "I understand the Code of Canon Law is a list of 2,000-plus laws of the Church. Are these laws subject to change over time? If so, where does the Church get the authority to change them?"

Catholic Answers - what's your answer?

"... Many of these laws are subject to change over time as the Church sees fit, while others are not ...

Like any other social and visible structure, the Church has norms to order the functions that have been entrusted to it. Just as the citizens of the state are to obey the speed limit, and a son is to listen to his mother's rules, canon law is to be observed by members of the Church - which is both the kingdom and the family of God.

The church gets her authority from Jesus to make these laws. He told the leaders of his Church, 'Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

... Since Jesus gave this authority to the leaders of his Church, they have authority to do such things as establish feast days and lay down laws for the good of the community."

First off, where in the Bible is abortion discussed? Anywhere? Anywhere? Bueller? Oh, are we talking about the Commandment which says, "Thou shalt not kill?" If that's the case, does Canon Law only apply to politicians whom are pro-choice? What about those whom are pro-war and/or pro-death penalty?

Secondly, does Canon Law differ a great deal between pro-life and pro-choice politicians? While pro-choice politicians favor abortion rights for women, they tend to also favor comprehensive sex education and contraception coverage, which studies find result in fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions, whereas pro-life politicians tend to be against comprehensive sex education and contraception coverage, which result in more unwanted pregnancies and abortions. So what's of greater importance? A politician saying he or she is against abortion, but supporting laws which increase the number of abortions, or a politician supporting that right, but putting in place laws which decrease the number of such procedures?

Lastly, Jesus gave church-leaders the right to alter laws and falsely speak for him? I have trouble believing that.

In the book of Jeremiah, chapter 5, verses 11-17, it reads:

"The people of Israel and the people of Judah
have been utterly unfaithful to me,'
declares the Lord.
They have lied about the Lord;
they said, 'He will do nothing!
No harm will come to us;
we will never see sword or famine.
The prophets are but wind
and the word is not in them;
so let what they say be done to them.'
Therefore this is what the Lord God Almighty says:

Because the people have spoken these words,
I will make my words in your mouth a fire
and these people the wood it consumes.
People of Israel,' declares the Lord,
'I am bringing a distant nation against you-
an ancient and enduring nation,
a people whose language you do not know,
whose speech you do not understand.
Their quivers are like an open grave;
all of them are mighty warriors.
They will devour your harvests and food,
devour your sons and daughters;
they will devour your flocks and herds,
devour your vines and fig trees.
With the sword they will destroy
the fortified cities in which you trust."

Oh, snap! As Martin Lawrence says in Bad Boys: "This s**t just got real!"

Anyway, Cardinal Burke, what were you saying about Nancy Pelosi and her being pro-choice again? What would God say about it? Oh, you don't actually know? I'll be darned.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/vatican-chief-justice-nancy-pelosi-must-denied-communion/

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/where-does-the-churchs-authority-to-change-canon-law-come-from

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+5&version=NIV

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"