Komen donations down 40%

[Escriva]

Dont be an uneducated moron. The Catholic Doctrine REQUIRES you to accept, the church, its dogma, teachings and belief of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ in order to achieve salvation. That is HUGELY different from a mans relationship with God and even taught by Christ himself. If it was how the Catholics wish it was then Jesus would have had an agent and the apostles could only speak with Jesus through his agent and they wouldnt be meeting informally out in the dirt. Catholics are as a whole the most Religiously ignorant of all the Christian faith. Dont bring any other strawmen bull$#@! into this. Ever wonder why there is no bible in that pew in front of you?

The missal contains all the readings for the masses. There are plenty of them in front of you. Jesus vested His authority in His apostles, and that included the ability to vest authority in their successors. What you're spouting has more to do with post-Renaissance and post-Enlightenment secular humanism than Christian theology.

Baptists, and most other denominations popular in the American South, have made Jesus fit their redneck Scotch-Irish ancestry. Unfortunately, that all has little to do with Christ and the Church.

[Dwight Schrute]

Yeah I'ma go ahead and call bull$#@! on that chart. If it is true though, than Georgetown slutbox needs to visit them for her contraception since they seem to say it's a big part of their business.

[MP5]

Enjoy your ignorance, you're perfect. They chose... wisely.

The missal contains all the readings for the masses. There are plenty of them in front of you. Jesus vested His authority in His apostles, and that included the ability to vest authority in their successors. What you're spouting has more to do with post-Renaissance and post-Enlightenment secular humanism than Christian theology.

Baptists, and most other denominations popular in the American South, have made Jesus fit their redneck Scotch-Irish ancestry. Unfortunately, that all has little to do with Christ and the Church.

[Gardner Barnes]

I am not surprised with the downturn in donations with the organization's decision to continue funding Planned Parenthood. The stench of eugenics and the politics of abortion are permanently grafted onto Planned Parenthood.

Very good counterpoint to the current popular opinion - very logical and could be right. Would be interesting to poll those that discontinued donations as to why.

I suspect it is a combination of lefties throwing a babyfit and Christian conservatives doing the same. The difference in my mind is that we are talking about a much bigger population of lefties that righties.

The lefties I know who brought this up always mentioned the Komen connection to the Bush family. The righties I know either didn't care ( those for whom abortion is not an issue) or cared a lot. The righties that cared a lot about this issue are a much smaller population that the lefties who care.

In my experience, abortion is not as big of a deal for the majority of either base as those who really care about the issue want to admit. It is more of a fringe issue and not something that the "swing/middle" voters consider as important as other issues like economics, international relations, or Brooke Burke's tits.

Bush/Obama hate IS a major issue for both groups.


Therefore, in this case, I think there are more lefties concerned/biased against a Bushie than the amount of righties who abhor abortion.

My guess for discos of donations would be something like this

Out of 100 donations that discoed
55 lefties who hate GWB and his circle
10 pro choice lefties
30 pro life righties
5 other

[MP5]

who can argue with that?

[Escriva]

Enjoy your ignorance, you're perfect. They chose... wisely.

Knowing things doesn't make you ignorant, even on the Internet.

[slorch]

What part of that chart persuades me, the anti-abortion philanthropist, to give to an organization that supports Planned Parenthood?

[slorch]

Once Komen threw Planned Parenthood under the bus, that was the clearest signal possible that they don't actually care about women's health. Anyone who continues to donate to them is a fool.

Those who conflate "Planned Parenthood" with "abortion" as if they are synonyms is just being a troll.

Roughly 1/4 of the abortions in the US are done by clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood.

No, they don't do the only abortions in the US, BUT they are supported by our tax dollars. And yeah, the first thing you're going to reply with is, "Hey none of those tax dollars can pay for abortions!"

Indeed, they cannot directly pay for them. I guess we are supposed to believe those funds do not allow for reallocation of the general funds, right?

Abortions are not the only function of Planned Parenthood. PP is a significant source of abortions though.

I also love how PP treats abortions the same way as a preganacy test or STD panel. They report their stats as "incidents" as opposed to the cost of each procedure. Abortions may be 3% of their actual incidents, but the portion of their budget allocated to abortion is significantly more than 3%.

[TexonLongIsland]

If you believed that Komen was doing good with breast cancer, why would you stop donating because of Planned Parenthood? Did the organization stop doing good with breast cancer? Or did you stop believing they were doing good with breast cancer?

This. This whole fiasco shows how petty many people are.

[slorch]

It sure sounded like Politics to me when you have a former GOP Governor candidate who ran on a platform of abolishing (or something like that) Planned Parenthood join Komen. Then, you have some right-wing nut GOP Congressman go on a fishing trip, start an investigation on Planned Parenthood. Then you have the former GOP Governor Candidate create some sort of Komen by-law that says you can't fund groups under investigation, despite nothing being found in the investigation, and, including the fact the investigation was POLITICAL.

That was the political part, the lady with a political agenda coupled with a bull$#@! political investigation by a anti-woman politician.

Komen decided to play political games with the money they gave Planned Parenthood for a non-political purpose (breast cancer screenings), so, I decided to play political games by giving donations to the group that was actually doing the work (Planned Parenthood).

Absolutely, politics are in play in what you describe above.

My statement was regarding the drop in contributions to Komen by individual donors. For me, I have contributed to Komen in the past, albeit very slightly( I sponsored a friend in WFTC.) I will no longer contribute to Komen- not because of politics, but because their values do not align with mine.

[slorch]

If you believed that Komen was doing good with breast cancer, why would you stop donating because of Planned Parenthood? Did the organization stop doing good with breast cancer? Or did you stop believing they were doing good with breast cancer?

So I should keep contributing because they only SLIGHTLY support something I absolutely oppose...

For me, no, the breast cancer research doesn't cancel out the fundamental violation of my personal beliefs. The mindset you describe is what has destroyed any leadership credibility our Congress has. They have a bill that is 98% great and they tag along 2% of BS that has nothing to do with the original bill. That 2% matters. I disagree with "skimming" the positive impact of things so to justify bull$#@! that many people would otherwise oppose.

Compromising doesn't apply for me when it comes to abortion. I will not contribute to Komen as long as they support PP.

[groverat]

Or did you stop believing they were doing good with breast cancer?

The motivation of a charity is very important when deciding whether or not you should give your hard-earned money to them. This sheds light on their motivations. I do not trust them with my money.

[Ghost of LL]

You asked for it for me to marry my wife in the church, you asked for it for me to be godfather to my nephew, you asked for it for my daughter to get baptized, you asked for it and excluded my Baptist brother from being my daughters godfather. What your saying is to just ignore that, ignore the most important soul saving issue and just pretend, of course youll be a liar and a fraud and go to hell, but we arent excluding you.

You're either full of $#@!, or . . . you're full of $#@!.

1) You don't have to be Catholic to get married in the Catholic Church. If your wife is Catholic, then all you had to do was agree to raise your children in the Church in order to be married in the Church. I know that from personal experience.

2) Any Christian can be a godparent to a child baptized in the Catholic Church. I know this from personal experience, as well. My daughter is going to have an Episcopalian godfather.

3) Baptism is the least onerous of the Catholic sacraments. The parents don't have to be Catholic. It doesn't have to be done in a church. It doesn't even have to be done by a priest. If you wanted your daughter to be baptized in the Catholic Church, nobody asked if you are Catholic. Doing so would contradict the point raised in issue number 1, and would pretty much invalidate the baptisms of half of America's Catholics.

4) The only sacrament--outside of ordination, obviously--that the Catholics keep "exclusive" is the Eucharist. That's because they have a contrary view of the Eucharist from Protestants. And if you don't think that it is the body and blood of Christ in substance, then you're not in communion with them and you shouldn't partake.

But their "exclusion" is limited to asking politely that you not partake. If you say "$#@! it--I'm in" and go up there, nobody's going to refuse you. There aren't Catholic bouncers that are going to manhandle you out of the church. There's no Catholic Card that you need to produce, and no shibboleth that you need to utter to get the magic wafer.

But riddle me this--if you don't think the magic wafer is the body and blood of Christ, why would you want to partake, anyway? It's not a terribly filling meal. And the quality of the wine is, to be generous, poor.

[Wulaw Horn]

Absolutely, politics are in play in what you describe above.

My statement was regarding the drop in contributions to Komen by individual donors. For me, I have contributed to Komen in the past, albeit very slightly( I sponsored a friend in WFTC.) I will no longer contribute to Komen- not because of politics, but because their values do not align with mine.

I donated $1500 one time when a good friend was in the walk. Know a bunch of other friends that donated. Actually had a conversation with one that said that he felt dirty once he learned of the connection.

I would not have donated at all, if I'd have known of the connection. I guess I should have vetted the organization a little better. Even if they are doing otherwise good work fighting cancer, I imagine so is the ACS and a $#@!load of other groups out there as well, that aren't supporting stuff I don't agree with.

And I think it's way more people like me than lefties that are leading to their drop in support. Could be wrong though.

[Brisketexan]

But riddle me this--if you don't think the magic wafer is the body and blood of Christ, why would you want to partake, anyway? It's not a terribly filling meal. And the quality of the wine is, to be generous, poor.

When I was a kid, I thought the communion wine was top-notch. Although to be fair, the first time I went to a Seder meal (I was probably 10-12), I thought that a certain Mogen David product was the bee's knees.

My taste in wine has improved since then . . . but only slightly.


OH -- and back on topic -- for ME and my personal disenchantment with Komen, this affair provided the opportunity for my new opinion, but it's not based on the affair itself. Rather, it was based on the curtain being pulled back. Before, I didn't think about Komen a lot -- I thought "hey, curing breast cancer's a good thing, I like seeing all the pink ribbons everywhere, it seems like a real unified effort," etc. That was about it. Afterwards, I read up on Komen, and their massive administrative overhead, and their aggy-ish claim to the color pink, to the word "cure," etc., and I realized that Komen is an ego-stroking monolithic BUSINESS, using breast cancer as an excuse for its enormous power.

F that. I've always preferred home-town charities instead of massive charitable bureaucracies, as they usually give the most bang for your donated buck. Komen now clearly fits into that view, and on the wrong side of the equation. I wasn't writing them checks before, but now, I kinda go out of my way to NOT buy the water bottle with the pink ribbon, etc.

[Wulaw Horn]

You're either full of $#@!, or . . . you're full of $#@!.

1) You don't have to be Catholic to get married in the Catholic Church. If your wife is Catholic, then all you had to do was agree to raise your children in the Church in order to be married in the Church. I know that from personal experience.

2) Any Christian can be a godparent to a child baptized in the Catholic Church. I know this from personal experience, as well. My daughter is going to have an Episcopalian godfather.

3) Baptism is the least onerous of the Catholic sacraments. The parents don't have to be Catholic. It doesn't have to be done in a church. It doesn't even have to be done by a priest. If you wanted your daughter to be baptized in the Catholic Church, nobody asked if you are Catholic. Doing so would contradict the point raised in issue number 1, and would pretty much invalidate the baptisms of half of America's Catholics.

4) The only sacrament--outside of ordination, obviously--that the Catholics keep "exclusive" is the Eucharist. That's because they have a contrary view of the Eucharist from Protestants. And if you don't think that it is the body and blood of Christ in substance, then you're not in communion with them and you shouldn't partake.

But their "exclusion" is limited to asking politely that you not partake. If you say "$#@! it--I'm in" and go up there, nobody's going to refuse you. There aren't Catholic bouncers that are going to manhandle you out of the church. There's no Catholic Card that you need to produce, and no shibboleth that you need to utter to get the magic wafer.

But riddle me this--if you don't think the magic wafer is the body and blood of Christ, why would you want to partake, anyway? It's not a terribly filling meal. And the quality of the wine is, to be generous, poor.

Great post. As a protestant that converted in an attempt to save a terrible marriage, and then the marriage failed and I went back to my faith tradition, I learned a lot about the catholic church. I really really like the catholic church. I think they get a couple of key things wrong, but hell, they are human and so does everyone (and I will not be arrogant enough to admit that I might be the one in error). Anyway, perfectly right on all your points. As to 1) yep-lived it 2) Didn't affect me as their was no children of our marriage 3)- spot on- I didn't have to get rebaptised b/c they considered my baptism- like 99.8% of all mainline christians baptisms to be perfectly fine.

As to 4) I never could get my mind wrapped all the way around the fact that it was actual blood and body, but I took communion in good faith with the hope that it was (it's a pretty cool concept, and I'm not convinced it's wrong- even if I'm not convinced it's right). At a very minimum, I like the way they handle communion with a seriousness and solemnity of purpose missing in many protestant churches/mega churches. I can't take communion now, but it's b/c I never got my first marriage annuled (which I think I"m still required to do- even though I wasn't catholic when I entered into it) before I can get in the churches good graces.

[MP5]

Tell me what church you are going to, I will meet with the priest and get these exact answers. Like you I have been through every single one and have exactly the opposite experience. And what is this $#@!ing bull$#@! about nobodies stopping you? Yea, that's real soul saving- just take it then, haha.

That is just addressing the issues at hand which is 100 percent opposite in my experience.

You're either full of $#@!, or . . . you're full of $#@!.

1) You don't have to be Catholic to get married in the Catholic Church. If your wife is Catholic, then all you had to do was agree to raise your children in the Church in order to be married in the Church. I know that from personal experience.

2) Any Christian can be a godparent to a child baptized in the Catholic Church. I know this from personal experience, as well. My daughter is going to have an Episcopalian godfather.

3) Baptism is the least onerous of the Catholic sacraments. The parents don't have to be Catholic. It doesn't have to be done in a church. It doesn't even have to be done by a priest. If you wanted your daughter to be baptized in the Catholic Church, nobody asked if you are Catholic. Doing so would contradict the point raised in issue number 1, and would pretty much invalidate the baptisms of half of America's Catholics.

4) The only sacrament--outside of ordination, obviously--that the Catholics keep "exclusive" is the Eucharist. That's because they have a contrary view of the Eucharist from Protestants. And if you don't think that it is the body and blood of Christ in substance, then you're not in communion with them and you shouldn't partake.

But their "exclusion" is limited to asking politely that you not partake. If you say "$#@! it--I'm in" and go up there, nobody's going to refuse you. There aren't Catholic bouncers that are going to manhandle you out of the church. There's no Catholic Card that you need to produce, and no shibboleth that you need to utter to get the magic wafer.

But riddle me this--if you don't think the magic wafer is the body and blood of Christ, why would you want to partake, anyway? It's not a terribly filling meal. And the quality of the wine is, to be generous, poor.

[Escriva]

On LL's point on #3, if the priest doesn't get a commitment from the parents to raise the kid Catholic, he isn't supposed to baptize him. I know LL was raising it in connection with his point 1, but just wanted to clarify. Doesn't matter much, because, as LL notes, any Trinitarian Baptism is valid in the eyes of the Church.

[Escriva]

WUlaw,

Did you marry your wife in the Church, and/or did she get a dispensation from the bishop?

[Wulaw Horn]

Tell me what church you are going to, I will meet with the priest and get these exact answers. Like you I have been through every single one and have exactly the opposite experience. And what is this $#@!ing bull$#@! about nobodies stopping you? Yea, that's real soul saving- just take it then, haha.

That is just addressing the issues at hand which is 100 percent opposite in my experience.

I lived it at 3 different churches in 3 different parishes and his experience was exactly the same as mine. And I'm no longer catholic, so it isn't like I have a dog in this fight. It actually, against all odds, sort of surprises me to say I'm no longer catholic. I never wanted to be catholic, I did it b/c my wife at the time refused to ever step foot into a protestant church but was at least willing to go occasionally (5 or 6 times a year) to a catholic church (I went every week- with her or without her- but I did require her to go to RCIA classes with me and she did). Never thought I'd like being catholic as much as I did- even though, like I said- there are still teachings of theirs I disagree with.

[Wulaw Horn]

WUlaw,

Did you marry your wife in the Church, and/or did she get a dispensation from the bishop?

Yes- I married my wife in the Church. I agreed to bring the kids up catholic so we didn't need a dispensation from the bishop. She made me sign a prenup, refused to procreate with me (not just use of birth control but said she would not have a kid with me even if it meant abortion- but that wasn't really an issue since we didn't have sex for the last 2 years of our relationship so she could insure we wouldn't have a kid) and did some other stuff that my friend, who is currently going into the priesthood, assured me means an annulment would be a slam dunk for me. He keeps pushing this on me, but as my current wife (and love of my life who I will be with forever) is baptist, my family is baptist, my faith tradition is baptist and my beliefs line up more or less with them it's not like I'm going to become catholic again. But I'm visiting my parents over in Europe for easter, for example, and would love to take communion and fully participate in mass in one of those wonderful old cathedrals during easter vigil. Or when I go to mass with my friend when we are hanging out for the weekend. Stuff like that.

Also as an aside for anyone out there considering marriage, if your fiance tells you to call the thing off a month before hand, and you think to yourself the entire time you see her walking down the aisle what a miserable mistake you are making- back out and run aways as fast as possible.

[Escriva]

Also MP5 is correct on godparent/sponsorship for baptisms conducted within the Church. Under Canon 874, the sponsor has to be a confirmed Catholic in good standing. If they're married to a non-Catholic, that person can be the "other" godparent. That may be the case in LL's situation.

[Wulaw Horn]

Also MP5 is correct on godparent/sponsorship for baptisms conducted within the Church. Under Canon 874, the sponsor has to be a confirmed Catholic in good standing. If they're married to a non-Catholic, that person can be the "other" godparent. That may be the case in LL's situation.

Sounds like it since he married into the church.

Episcapalians (sp I"m sure) have no such requirement as we are god parents for a couple of kids. I think they are transubstanitationists (probable made up word) and more or less almost identical in all main points though..

[Escriva]

Yes- I married my wife in the Church. I agreed to bring the kids up catholic so we didn't need a dispensation from the bishop. She made me sign a prenup, refused to procreate with me (not just use of birth control but said she would not have a kid with me even if it meant abortion- but that wasn't really an issue since we didn't have sex for the last 2 years of our relationship so she could insure we wouldn't have a kid) and did some other stuff that my friend, who is currently going into the priesthood, assured me means an annulment would be a slam dunk for me. He keeps pushing this on me, but as my current wife (and love of my life who I will be with forever) is baptist, my family is baptist, my faith tradition is baptist and my beliefs line up more or less with them it's not like I'm going to become catholic again. But I'm visiting my parents over in Europe for easter, for example, and would love to take communion and fully participate in mass in one of those wonderful old cathedrals during easter vigil. Or when I go to mass with my friend when we are hanging out for the weekend. Stuff like that.

Also as an aside for anyone out there considering marriage, if your fiance tells you to call the thing off a month before hand, and you think to yourself the entire time you see her walking down the aisle what a miserable mistake you are making- back out and run aways as fast as possible.

Then, yeah, the marriage is valid, and you'd need to get it annulled to take communion again. Or maybe you could confess to adultery, and not have sex with your current wife until the anullment is granted, but that's probably off the table.

I will take the advice in your last para under advisement. The current auditioner to be Mrs. Escriva works in MSM, so that's probably the deal breaker in and of itself.

[Wulaw Horn]

Then, yeah, the marriage is valid, and you'd need to get it annulled to take communion again. Or maybe you could confess to adultery, and not have sex with your current wife until the anullment is granted, but that's probably off the table.

I will take the advice in your last para under advisement. The current auditioner to be Mrs. Escriva works in MSM, so that's probably the deal breaker in and of itself.

Yes as to the first point- I cannot confess in good conscience b/c I can't promise to try to turn away from sinful behavior. If I got a divorce, and attempted to live a celebate lifestyle that'd be ok with the church (In my understanding anyway). Even if I was banging random coke whores every now and again, provided I went to confession and prommissed to try to turn away from my sin. But you can't really do that when the person that the church says you are currently committing adultrey with is your legal wife, and the love of your life and the mother of your child with child #2 on the way. That said- things are a lot easier for Catholic's now b/c I'd assuredly be given an annulment for my first marriage if I wanted one and being right with the church as important enough to me to cut through the red tape. Once upon a time you'd have been stuck forever.

[TexonLongIsland]

The role of godparent is an actual responsibility in the Catholic Church. It's not just an honor for close family friends. The god parents are obligated to see that the child is raised a good Catholic even if the parents are still alive. That would be difficult if the god parents aren't Catholic themselves. I realize most people don't take it that seriously, but it still the position of the church.

[MP5]

I had to LIE to be godfather to my nephew. Actually not lie, make a cash exception and then LIE about being a Catholic in good standing. That seems to be OK from all the counsel Im getting. Nobody is stopping you, just say you are. Doesnt that defeat the purpose of taking your faith seriously?

[Wulaw Horn]

I had to LIE to be godfather to my nephew. Actually not lie, make a cash exception and then LIE about being a Catholic in good standing. That seems to be OK from all the counsel Im getting. Nobody is stopping you, just say you are. Doesnt that defeat the purpose of taking your faith seriously?

You seem really angry and I"m not sure why. The stuff your saying doesn't square at all with my experience, LL's experience, Escriva's or numerous other's on the board. Coupled with how angry you seem to be about it you have got my radar up that this is something that you aren't seeing realistically. At a very minimum I think you need to do a better job of fleshing out your thoughts and/or what your beefs are. Or don't, but I'm just talking about if you want to be heard and understood, which I'd presume is the point of communication in this medium (anonymity, on the net etc).

[texasdago]

The organization's 2011 financial statement reports that 43 percent of donations were spent on education, 18 percent on fund-raising and administration, 15 percent on research awards and grants, 12 percent on screening and 5 percent on treatment. (Various other items accounted for the rest.)

15% for the Cure

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8171KW20120208

[MP5]

Um, what are you talking about? Escriva just confirmed what I said. He didn't have to because I KNOW I have lived it, I deal with it as a PIMA all the time. I've delt with it all my life, through Catholic prep school, through trying to get married, baptisms, and children. I have gotten through with payoffs, selective following of doctrine and "just doing it". With a child in the picture I must now confront this. You understand right?

[Escriva]

Um, what are you talking about? Escriva just confirmed what I said. He didn't have to because I KNOW I have lived it, I deal with it as a PIMA all the time. I've delt with it all my life, through Catholic prep school, through trying to get married, baptisms, and children. I have gotten through with payoffs, selective following of doctrine and "just doing it". With a child in the picture I must now confront this. You understand right?

Maybe God just really wants you to end your schism with His Church.

[MP5]

Maybe God just really wants you to end your schism with His Church.

Hmm, how Mohammed of him

[Ghost of LL]

Also MP5 is correct on godparent/sponsorship for baptisms conducted within the Church. Under Canon 874, the sponsor has to be a confirmed Catholic in good standing. If they're married to a non-Catholic, that person can be the "other" godparent. That may be the case in LL's situation.

That relates to the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults ("RCIA"), which is what Wulaw undertook with his wife as a sponsor.

Baptism of an infant is significantly less onerous. Under Canon 851.2, the only obligation is that "the parents of an infant to be baptized and those who are to undertake the function of sponsor are to be instructed properly on the meaning of this sacrament and the obligations attached to it. The pastor personally or through others is to take care that the parents are properly instructed through both pastoral advice and common prayer, bringing several families together and, where possible, visiting them." There is no requirement (a) that the parents be Catholic or (b) that the godparents be Catholic. They simply have to be "instructed properly on the meaning of the sacrament."

Baptism of an infant is completely easy. They'd like for it to be done in a church by a priest. But if there are extenuating circumstances, it doesn't have to be done in a church. It doesn't have to be done by a priest. If you've got an emergency situation, a nurse with a pan of water can say the appropriate words in the hospital and get the deed done.

So for MP5 to come on here and tell me that there was some sort of inquisition involved in the most simple of sacraments tells me he's completely full of $#@!.

[MP5]

Again, what is the name of your church? I would LOVE to simplify my life and rid myself of the charlatans that are not administering Cathlocism properly. I would LOVE to have my Baptist brother be godfather to my child and not tell her Daddy is going to hell. I know it's too late to go back and just have a man that's never been married tell me about it and how to manange my finances over the course of weeks, but I'm here now. I would like to go to church with my family.

That relates to the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults ("RCIA"), which is what Wulaw undertook with his wife as a sponsor.

Baptism of an infant is significantly less onerous. Under Canon 851.2, the only obligation is that "the parents of an infant to be baptized and those who are to undertake the function of sponsor are to be instructed properly on the meaning of this sacrament and the obligations attached to it. The pastor personally or through others is to take care that the parents are properly instructed through both pastoral advice and common prayer, bringing several families together and, where possible, visiting them." There is no requirement (a) that the parents be Catholic or (b) that the godparents be Catholic. They simply have to be "instructed properly on the meaning of the sacrament."

Baptism of an infant is completely easy. They'd like for it to be done in a church by a priest. But if there are extenuating circumstances, it doesn't have to be done in a church. It doesn't have to be done by a priest. If you've got an emergency situation, a nurse with a pan of water can say the appropriate words in the hospital and get the deed done.

So for MP5 to come on here and tell me that there was some sort of inquisition involved in the most simple of sacraments tells me he's completely full of $#@!.

[Escriva]

That relates to the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults ("RCIA"), which is what Wulaw undertook with his wife as a sponsor.

Baptism of an infant is significantly less onerous. Under Canon 851.2, the only obligation is that "the parents of an infant to be baptized and those who are to undertake the function of sponsor are to be instructed properly on the meaning of this sacrament and the obligations attached to it. The pastor personally or through others is to take care that the parents are properly instructed through both pastoral advice and common prayer, bringing several families together and, where possible, visiting them." There is no requirement (a) that the parents be Catholic or (b) that the godparents be Catholic. They simply have to be "instructed properly on the meaning of the sacrament."

Baptism of an infant is completely easy. They'd like for it to be done in a church by a priest. But if there are extenuating circumstances, it doesn't have to be done in a church. It doesn't have to be done by a priest. If you've got an emergency situation, a nurse with a pan of water can say the appropriate words in the hospital and get the deed done.

So for MP5 to come on here and tell me that there was some sort of inquisition involved in the most simple of sacraments tells me he's completely full of $#@!.

874 is in Title I, which deals with baptism of both adults and infants. RCIA is confirmation, which is covered in the next title. Here are sections 872-875:

Can. 872 Insofar as possible, a person to be baptized is to be given a sponsor who assists an adult in Christian initiation or together with the parents presents an infant for baptism. A sponsor also helps the baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it.

Can. 873 There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each.

Can. 874 §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a person must:

1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;

2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;

3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;

5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

§2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Y.HTM

[Escriva]

Again, what is the name of your church? I would LOVE to simplify my life and rid myself of the charlatans that are not administering Cathlocism properly. I would LOVE to have my Baptist brother be godfather to my child and not tell her Daddy is going to hell. I know it's too late to go back and just have a man that's never been married tell me about it and how to manange my finances over the course of weeks, but I'm here now. I would like to go to church with my family.

It sounds you believe things that the Catholic Church does. My advice to you is to not be Catholic. It doesn't seem that difficult. Not sure why you think you're entitled to make a 2K year old entity change to accomodate your preferences. But since you seem to be a Fluke type, you can always write the Secretary of HHS, and see if she'll make the Church pay for stuff you want that it doesn't like. She seems into that sort of thing.

[MP5]

It sounds you believe things that the Catholic Church does. My advice to you is to not be Catholic. It doesn't seem that difficult. Not sure why you think you're entitled to make a 2K year old entity change to accomodate your preferences. But since you seem to be a Fluke type, you can always write the Secretary of HHS, and see if she'll make the Church pay for stuff you want that it doesn't like. She seems into that sort of thing.

Don't be a retard, I just want to be able to go to church with my wife and child and not have my daughter told her dad is going to hell. You know like every other religion on earth except for one other.

[Escriva]

Who is telling you you are going to hell? And your focus on your preferences makes my point: it's not about you ($1 to non-Catholic Rick Warren). Church is about God, and trying to do His will, not trying to make Him bend to yours.

[MyQuick=FrenchToast]

Somebody PM me when this thread actually gets back to the Komen issue. kthxbai.

[VoodooChi|d]

A church that has killed millions and protects pedophiles telling someone they're going to hell is rich.

[Ghost of LL]

As to 4) I never could get my mind wrapped all the way around the fact that it was actual blood and body, but I took communion in good faith with the hope that it was (it's a pretty cool concept, and I'm not convinced it's wrong- even if I'm not convinced it's right).

I think we do a very poor job of explaining the concept of "substance" in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The concept comes from Aristotelian ontology about the nature of objects. But that doesn't well translate to medieval society in which even the nobility is rarely literate, much less well-read in the philosophers of antiquity.

So the result is that you get silly things like the "Miracle of Bolsena", in which the consecrated host supposedly bled.* So people ran around for a thousand years misunderstanding the entire theory, thinking that the host was supposed to actually have Christ's DNA or some $#@!.

From a Aristotelian philosophical view, objects have a certain substance. A lamb has a certain substance from which we know it's a lamb. It is warm to the touch, it goes "baaa," it has a beating heart and breathing lungs. It has a brain that thinks cute little lamb thoughts. But it also has certain attributes that you can see. It has soft wool and a black nose and four legs. But those aren't the substance.

If the lamb dies, its attributes may be the same. Even though it's dead, it still has soft well and a black nose and four legs (and mighty yummy chops). But it no longer has the substance of a lamb. The substance of a lamb has been replaced by the substance of a dead mammal, complete with maggots and smell of decay.

So it is with the consecrated host. After consecration, it has all of the attributes of bread and wine. But in substance, it is something else entirely. It's a real sit down and go "huh" kind of thing. Unfortunately, the Western Church has done a poor job of explaining the mystery of transubstantiation--in many ways I think the Eastern Church gives a much more elegant description.





* That's not to say that the miracle didn't happen. The consecrated host may have bled for all I know. But its bleeding didn't exactly lead to a very good understanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation in the generations to follow.

[Ghost of LL]

Don't be a retard, I just want to be able to go to church with my wife and child and not have my daughter told her dad is going to hell. You know like every other religion on earth except for one other.

Who's telling you you're going to Hell?

This is another way in which I know you're full of $#@!. Catholics don't tell people they're going to Hell. Catholics are big into Purgatory. But they're really bigger on confession and absolution. No Catholic priest would ever tell you that you're going to Hell because as far as he (or anybody) knows, you may repent.

Someone telling you "you're going to Hell" has the strong whiff of predestination. That's really a Calvinist thing that the Catholics wholly reject.

For the record, my local church is St. Thomas Aquinas in Dallas, but I've been a member of plenty of Catholic parishes in this state (including but not limited to St. Luke and St. Joseph in San Antonio, St. Austin in Austin, and Holy Trinity in Dallas)--all of them have been exactly the same on these issues precisely because these are points laid down from Rome on which the Church is "universal."

[Wulaw Horn]

I think we do a very poor job of explaining the concept of "substance" in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The concept comes from Aristotelian ontology about the nature of objects. But that doesn't well translate to medieval society in which even the nobility is rarely literate, much less well-read in the philosophers of antiquity.

So the result is that you get silly things like the "Miracle of Bolsena", in which the consecrated host supposedly bled.* So people ran around for a thousand years misunderstanding the entire theory, thinking that the host was supposed to actually have Christ's DNA or some $#@!.

From a Aristotelian philosophical view, objects have a certain substance. A lamb has a certain substance from which we know it's a lamb. It is warm to the touch, it goes "baaa," it has a beating heart and breathing lungs. It has a brain that thinks cute little lamb thoughts. But it also has certain attributes that you can see. It has soft wool and a black nose and four legs. But those aren't the substance.

If the lamb dies, its attributes may be the same. Even though it's dead, it still has soft well and a black nose and four legs (and mighty yummy chops). But it no longer has the substance of a lamb. The substance of a lamb has been replaced by the substance of a dead mammal, complete with maggots and smell of decay.

So it is with the consecrated host. After consecration, it has all of the attributes of bread and wine. But in substance, it is something else entirely. It's a real sit down and go "huh" kind of thing. Unfortunately, the Western Church has done a poor job of explaining the mystery of transubstantiation--in many ways I think the Eastern Church gives a much more elegant description.





* That's not to say that the miracle didn't happen. The consecrated host may have bled for all I know. But its bleeding didn't exactly lead to a very good understanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation in the generations to follow.

Your explanation really didn't help me understand the issue any better than I did before. I concede that the fault is probably mine and mine alone. It's something I read on and studied and still can't wrap my mind around. That's not to say I reject it, just that I don't understand. And that's ok, there is plenty of stuff related to faith I don't think I will ever understand on this side. Who am I to know the mind or workings of God?

[Wulaw Horn]

Who's telling you you're going to Hell?

This is another way in which I know you're full of $#@!. Catholics don't tell people they're going to Hell. Catholics are big into Purgatory. But they're really bigger on confession and absolution. No Catholic priest would ever tell you that you're going to Hell because as far as he (or anybody) knows, you may repent.

Someone telling you "you're going to Hell" has the strong whiff of predestination. That's really a Calvinist thing that the Catholics wholly reject.

For the record, my local church is St. Thomas Aquinas in Dallas, but I've been a member of plenty of Catholic parishes in this state (including but not limited to St. Luke and St. Joseph in San Antonio, St. Austin in Austin, and Holy Trinity in Dallas)--all of them have been exactly the same on these issues precisely because these are points laid down from Rome on which the Church is "universal."

Also very good post. Interestingly enough most catholics I talked to also will not tell you they are going to heaven, either. There is much less certainty involved in both those issues than with the typical mainline protestant...

Now, my brother told me I'm not a believer (he's baptist) if I was able to divorce my wife and get remarried b/c I'm purposely committing adultery for the rest of my life. We haven't spoken since my marriage 2.5 years ago. Not b/c I'm pissed at him (though in truth it's been hard) but b/c he's shunning me and telling me (and everyone else in the family- both biological and his church) that I'm to be shunned as an example of new testament church discipline as a heretic. Good times. But that's not common baptist doctrine, as even Ed Young's church told us they'd have no problem marrying my wife and I as long as we did all the standard pre-marital classes/counseling.

[Anastasis]

Not sure that I understand the butthurt over the Catholic church requiring an individual who wants to participate in their sacraments be in communion with the teachings of the Catholic church.

[Ghost of LL]

Your explanation really didn't help me understand the issue any better than I did before. I concede that the fault is probably mine and mine alone. It's something I read on and studied and still can't wrap my mind around. That's not to say I reject it, just that I don't understand. And that's ok, there is plenty of stuff related to faith I don't think I will ever understand on this side. Who am I to know the mind or workings of God?

I don't understand it either. To a large extent, I think it's wholly incapable of human understanding. That's why I think the Eastern Church has a more pleasant explanation when they characterize it as the "divine mystery."

Frankly, I have a real problem with some of the big theological questions--i.e., I have a problem with the fact that they exist. Christology is my favorite, which is to say I hate it the most. Do you really think that we mere humans can understand the true nature of Christ? I mean, maybe we've got it right. But I'm not going to put the unity of the Church at issue over a question that is, in my mind, inherently unknowable. A "divine mystery," if you will.

Don't get me wrong. These are interesting questions to ponder. I think it's kind of entertaining to open a bottle of whiskey and ponder the Filioque Clause (on which I think the Eastern Church may have the better side of the argument, by the way). But I'm not going to say that I have a definitive understanding of the issues. Nor am I going to concede that any human has a definitive understanding, either.

but b/c he's shunning me and telling me (and everyone else in the family- both biological and his church) that I'm to be shunned as an example of new testament church discipline as a heretic. Good times. But that's not common baptist doctrine, as even Ed Young's church told us they'd have no problem marrying my wife and I as long as we did all the standard pre-marital classes/counseling.

That sucks. I think it's unfortunate in that this comes from a really narrow reading of what Jesus said.


Pics of wife (No. 1 or 2) needed, by the way.