Abortion Rights Supporters in Congress to Receive Communion

[kbharbert]

***Even if the pope chained them to a post for the whole mass, what about next weekend? It’s the same body of Christ.
—then you KEEP chaining them to a post til they CHOOSE to honor the ‘rules’.
*They don’t need to be put in their place, they need to be educated. By their parish priests. By their local bishops. Who knows, perhaps all the people in question went to confession right before the mass and realised the wrongness of their ways? We can’t know these things.
—what???
yes we CAN know whether they have realized the wrong of their ways…check and see how they voted on capital hill.
going to confession, receiving and then going right back out and voting for abortion and gay ‘rights’ makes the entire mass a mockery!!
these people ARE educated—they simply do not AGREE with the church and so CHOOSE to get away with whatever they can BECAUSE the church has not taken a hard line with them.
*being denied communion once by the pope in such a public setting would cause a great media scandal, and would in fact take the focus away from Jesus Christ, who is supposed to be the focus of the mass. If denied today, they would only have to go to any number of other catholic services another day to receive the body of Christ
—yes…there would be an uproar.
a ‘scandal’? by whose definition? yes the secular world would have a cow but who cares?
faithful catholics would cheer.
catholics are the only religion i have ever seen who gives a rats bum what the secular world ‘thinks’ of them.
believe, don’t believe…there is NO middle ground.
if those who are refused wish to receive elsewhere, then let them receive in a church more to their liking.
since they obviously are not faithful catholics, maybe an episcopalian church would suit them better.
—kelly beth

**

 

[blessedtoo]

The war in Iraq is seriously wrong(mortal sin). If I only factored that into my “choice” as to voting for a candidate consistent with my Catholic views, I feel I am justified in voting for a candidate who wants to end the war. What does this have to do with “ProLife”? simple, “those who choose force admit that they have lost the argument”
What does this have to do with abortion? Well, some choose to murder the innocent which is a war on the innocent and for that, I too believe it is wrong. Should it be legal? Ideally, no, but the system in the US believes that it should and, so, we must keep trying to change it, but not necessarily by voting a certain party as that does not seem to be the solution. The solution is a divine one-prayer!

Yes, I am anti war or “ProLife”! The Church does not condone of support the Iraq war.

I have heard self righteous interpretations as to the Catholic view and, yet, I stand strong intellectually and conscientiously in good stead with the Catholic view.

I do not and will not support an abortion, but that will not keep me from choosing a politician to represent our country who will end the war in Iraq.

If you want to change the views of those who do not want abortion to be legal, then you have to help them change from within. Luther did not choose to change the Church from within, but chose his own way.

Recall, the Church has not said that it condemns or excommunicates anyone who votes for a “Pro Choice” candidate.

I simply believe that there are more human lives lost due to the ways of the so called “ProLife” candidates than the “Prochoice” ones. The rheteroric is confusing and some fall for it.

I have developed a Catholic conscience since I was a cradle catholic and kept it in shape over the years, so, please don’t imply that you know better thatn I. That is what is called condescending.

I am “ProChoice”, but do not accept abortion as a solution to having an unwanted pregnancy. These two things can coexist and for many they do.

If you read this, I beseech you to just accept my view as mine and let it go, ok? tks

Respect life and each other,
sham7

PS BTW, I contribute my time and talent to end abortion and teach women other options for an unwanted pregnancy

From the document written by then Cardinal Ratzinger:

The third principle underlines the diversity of moral weight between abortion and euthanasia, on the one hand, and war and the death penalty, on the other. The memorandum declares: <<There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia>> [55].

 

[harveyc]

I simply believe that there are more human lives lost due to the ways of the so called “ProLife” candidates than the “Prochoice” ones. The rheteroric is confusing and some fall for it.

You don’t want your views question so I’m not going to get into other parts of your discussion, but this statement is something that is factually incorrect and not even close. Somewhere between 45-50 million babies have been killed by abortion in the USA since 1973, far more than all of the lives lost in all of the wars of recorded history.

I also don’t believe either party will bring about an end to the Iraq promptly. Much of the comments about ending the war by some political candidates now is just rhetoric to win votes. Many of the same people made comments indicating a need to take action against Iraq. Go to snopes.com and search “words of mass destruction”.

Back on topic: I was at the Mass in D.C. and am glad I was not aware of this at the time as it would have ruined the uplifting experience I had there. Since my family and I had to travel across the country we had not followed the news stories, etc. and just focused on hearing from the Holy Father. I hope some explanation is made about this, though I imagine there is a possibility it will be dealt with privately.

 

[elt1956]

You don’t want your views question so I’m not going to get into other parts of your discussion, but this statement is something that is factually incorrect and not even close. Somewhere between 45-50 million babies have been killed by abortion in the USA since 1973, far more than all of the lives lost in all of the wars of recorded history.

I also don’t believe either party will bring about an end to the Iraq promptly. Much of the comments about ending the war by some political candidates now is just rhetoric to win votes. Many of the same people made comments indicating a need to take action against Iraq. Go to snopes.com and search “words of mass destruction”.

Back on topic: I was at the Mass in D.C. and am glad I was not aware of this at the time as it would have ruined the uplifting experience I had there. Since my family and I had to travel across the country we had not followed the news stories, etc. and just focused on hearing from the Holy Father. I hope some explanation is made about this, though I imagine there is a possibility it will be dealt with privately.

On the above para. this is a copy of what I posted on this thread #8, I believe.

Hi yes. This is a frustrating development, especially when we do not know the true facts behind it. I don’t understand the Canon law that enabled the clergy to give communion to those we see as unworthy , but it is there someplace. I did copy the following from:

The Catholic News Agency website.
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12393

Pope Benedict himself addressed the topic in his March 2007 apostolic exhortation “Sacramentum Caritatis,” warning Catholics in general and Catholic politicians in particular not to receive Holy Communion unworthily. In the letter, he wrote that politicians must adhere to “non-negotiable” values, such as “respect for human life” and “its defense from conception to natural death.” Such politicians “must feel particularly bound” to “introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature.”

Apparently the clergy decided rather than cause a big do about it, they would go ahead and give the Notorious Four, as I call them, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry and Giuliani Communion in the mode of Christian Charity.

As to the Abortion and pro-choice person who first wrote the post here, I choose to try to protect the lives of the helpless in the ways I can. Did I want the War in Iraq, no, but the powers that be, the head of which is anti-abortion, decided we were under threat. He and those of his administration have the blood of young lives on their hands. We here in the states can do nothing about that blood for now, but we can oppose abortion and fight it as well as possible, given we citizens have little to say about our country these days. If you think anything is going to change no matter who gets in office in 2008, you are living in la la land.

 

[elt1956]

Yes, this comes as no surprise. I am pleased to hear that someone asked the question as I think we should ALL be asking the question of our Bishops. They should be made aware that there is now much confusion among the faithful.

I think the response is typical but it still refuses to address the canon law regarding this issue. Based on the answer given, the Bishops have decided that canon 915 is no longer binding and they have rewritten the “law” to fit their new “pastoral” approach.

So again, my question would be for the Holy Father. Regardless of whether he has the authority to “order” the Bishops to comply with the canon law, the larger question for me is whether he is aware that this change has occurred. Is this new approach the new norm?

Very frustrating.

I believe Canon 915 which states that those who have received sentence ie. excommunication? for heretical, or schismatic actions cannot receive communion. Canon 912 is a bit different in saying that those Catholics not under sentence can receive, but if they receive unworthily they take the responsibility for their own actions. The Notorious Four Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry and Guiliani are not under edict, (why I don’t know), and therefore could receive communion. Pope Benedict did give warning to them: See the following website.

The Catholic News Agency website.
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12393

 

[blessedtoo]

I believe Canon 915 which states that those who have received sentence ie. excommunication? for heretical, or schismatic actions cannot receive communion. Canon 912 is a bit different in saying that those Catholics not under sentence can receive, but if they receive unworthily they take the responsibility for their own actions. The Notorious Four Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry and Guiliani are not under edict, (why I don’t know), and therefore could receive communion. Pope Benedict did give warning to them: See the following website.

The Catholic News Agency website.
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12393

The statement of the bishop in question confuses the norm of can. 916, which applies to the self-examination of the individual communicant, with the norm of can. 915, which obliges the minister of Holy Communion to refuse the Sacrament in the cases indicated.

 

[elt1956]

blessedtoo:
Say again. Please explain the difference. Thanks.

 

[elt1956]

kellicouch77:

My question is this: Does the pope look like a hypocrite when he gives communion to those politicians that brazenly and openly go against the church’s teachings? After all, he is to stand up to the sins of the world, not just push them under the rug. Besides, how many good Catholics can’t take communion because of issues within the church?

Apparently the Notorious Four don’t have consciences and those who follow church rule do. I am trying not to stay angry with the FOUR idiots, but am finding it hard not to…

 

[harveyc]

On the above para. this is a copy of what I posted on this thread #8, I believe.

Hi yes. This is a frustrating development, especially when we do not know the true facts behind it. I don’t understand the Canon law that enabled the clergy to give communion to those we see as unworthy , but it is there someplace. I did copy the following from:

The Catholic News Agency website.
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12393

Pope Benedict himself addressed the topic in his March 2007 apostolic exhortation “Sacramentum Caritatis,” warning Catholics in general and Catholic politicians in particular not to receive Holy Communion unworthily. In the letter, he wrote that politicians must adhere to “non-negotiable” values, such as “respect for human life” and “its defense from conception to natural death.” Such politicians “must feel particularly bound” to “introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature.”

Apparently the clergy decided rather than cause a big do about it, they would go ahead and give the Notorious Four, as I call them, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry and Giuliani Communion in the mode of Christian Charity.

As to the Abortion and pro-choice person who first wrote the post here, I choose to try to protect the lives of the helpless in the ways I can. Did I want the War in Iraq, no, but the powers that be, the head of which is anti-abortion, decided we were under threat. He and those of his administration have the blood of young lives on their hands. We here in the states can do nothing about that blood for now, but we can oppose abortion and fight it as well as possible, given we citizens have little to say about our country these days. If you think anything is going to change no matter who gets in office in 2008, you are living in la la land.

I’ve read your message 3-4 times now and don’t really understand what you are saying. Post #8 in this thread is not from you and I don’t see where you wrote the same thing as what I posted. I’m just not understanding what you are saying, I guess.

By the way, here is an interesting article on the subject by Robert Novak:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/27/AR2008042701209.html

 

[blessedtoo]

From the Washington Post Article:

In the aftermath of the U.S. visit by Pope Benedict XVI, traditional Catholics are asking a troublesome question: Did pro-choice politicians receiving Communion at the papal Masses indicate the pope had softened on the abortion question? **The answer is no. On the contrary, it reflected disobedience to Benedict by the archbishops of New York and Washington. **

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry, Christopher Dodd and Edward M. Kennedy received Communion at Nationals Park in Washington, as did former mayor Rudolph Giuliani at Yankee Stadium in New York. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Edward Egan, archbishop of New York, invited them. Given choice seats, they took Communion as a matter of course.

In New York, Giuliani receiving Communion was even more remarkable. Unlike Pelosi and Kennedy, who attend Mass regularly, the former mayor says he goes to church only “occasionally,” usually for holidays or funerals. Abortion aside, Giuliani’s third marriage would make him ineligible for Communion because his second marriage was not annulled by the church. But Cardinal Egan is no more apt than Cardinal McCarrick was to offend the powerful, and Giuliani was invited to the Mass.

Good job Mr. Novak!

And from today’s NY Times:

Cardinal Egan, head of the Archdiocese of New York, said in a statement that he and Mr. Giuliani had reached “an understanding” when he became archbishop in 2000 that Mr. Giuliani “was not to receive the eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion.”
“I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the eucharist during the papal visit here in New York,” the cardinal said.
He said he would like to meet with Mr. Giuliani “to insist that he abide by our understanding” about not receiving communion.

nytimes.com/2008/04/29/nyregion/29communion.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

Finally, some public acknowledgement.

 

[elt1956]

I’ve read your message 3-4 times now and don’t really understand what you are saying. Post #8 in this thread is not from you and I don’t see where you wrote the same thing as what I posted. I’m just not understanding what you are saying, I guess.

By the way, here is an interesting article on the subject by Robert Novak:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/27/AR2008042701209.html

I’m sorry Harvy. I must have misposted. I’ll see if I can find it and get back to you.

 

[guanophore]

I know exactly what you mean. I cannot take communion either until my annullment is final. I believe there are Catholics who abuse this sacred and holy sacrament, and at times it does make me upset. But that is between them and God. In a way it gives me more strength and encouragement to do what I believe is right.

I commend you for this great faith expressed in obedience. I agree that the profanation is primarily between the individual and God, but it also affects the whole Body, as when one does something it affects the whole. Therefore I will risk this boldness in saying that every time you (or anyone of the faithful with such sacrifice) waits upon the Lord, yearning for Him but refraining in obedience, by such an act makes reparation for all those who profane the sacrament by receiving in an unworthy manner. May your purity of heart be seen and be a witness to all in your congregation, but even more toward those of rebellious heart.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for that info, revelation, at least we may be spared that spectacle.

I also go to the altar to receive a blessing and to get as close to Christ as I can. I know that he knows how I desire Him and will answer my prayers according to His time.

I believe that most Catholics receive communion out of habit. They think they are Catholic because they receive without understanding that it is their faith in and submission to the church’s teachings that make them Catholic.

I agree with you about “most Catholics”. If Catholics really did examine themselves, they would have the sense to go to confession first. I am continually amazed at the scarcity of bodies in the pews at confession, yet the bulging communion lines at Mass. I cannot believe that I am surrounded by such as large group of saints!

Indeed it is submission to the Teachings that makes a Catholic. I think many who I see in the pews are Protestants, and don’t realize it, because they believe they can use a cafeteria style of faith, and still call themselves Catholic.

 

[bobzills]

I am continually amazed at the scarcity of bodies in the pews at confession, yet the bulging communion lines at Mass.

Perhaps that is because Catholics are a lot more holy and saintlier than they were before Vatican II.

 

[harveyc]

In looking for news on another topic, I found this article from a couple of days ago and don’t see that it’s been posted to this thread.

As much as I’d like to some of these politicians straightened out, I think Archbishop Wuerl’s position makes good sense. This does not seem to be just some “passing the buck” (where on earth did that term originate from? ).

Full article:
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58176

Excerpt of three paragraphs:

In a column that appears in this week’s edition of the archdiocesan newspaper, Catholic Standard, the archbishop argues that any decision to bar prominent Catholics from receiving the Eucharist should be made by the bishop in their local dioceses.

Archbishop Wuerl indicated that he would not bar a politician from receiving Communion unless the bishop of that politician’s diocese had taken that step. He explained that he has “always respected the role of the local Church and the ministry of the individual bishop as shepherd of the Church entrusted to his care.”

The archbishop was clearly responding to public protests that arose from pro-life Catholics after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Chris Dodd received Communion during a Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news). None of those individuals is enrolled in the Washington archdiocese. Pelosi is from California; Kennedy and Kerry are from Massachusetts; Dodd is from Connecticut. In his column the archbishop did not indicate how he would respond to a pro-abortion Catholic politician who resided in Washington.

 

[blessedtoo]

In looking for news on another topic, I found this article from a couple of days ago and don’t see that it’s been posted to this thread.

As much as I’d like to some of these politicians straightened out, I think Archbishop Wuerl’s position makes good sense. This does not seem to be just some “passing the buck” (where on earth did that term originate from? ).

Full article:
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58176

Excerpt of three paragraphs:

On the World Over Live, Bishop Bruskewitz addressed this column and stated that there is a great disconnect among the American Bishops in their interpretation of canon 915. In Wuerl’s essay, he states:

The bishops concluded that the responsibility to assess this situation within a bishop’s own diocese and the proper application of canon law clearly rests with the individual bishop. Bishops may arrive at different conclusions based on their local situations.
cathstan.org/main.asp?SectionID=14&SubSectionID=79&ArticleID=1684&TM=74621.99

As Bruskewitz commented, this is a misreading of the law. It does not allow for individual Bishops to “arrive at different conlcusions”. While each Bishop may choose to apply the Pastoral approach differently according to their “local situations”, this does not relieve them of their responsibility to protect the soul of the obstinant sinner AND the Holy Eucharist.

Check out the World Over Live for more info.

 

[harveyc]

Thanks, blessedtoo. I’ll check The World Over if I can find the time.

I agree that the bishops should not interpret the canon differently but it “seemed” to make sense that each bishop had responsibility for the members of the church in their diocese. But then again, maybe that is just passing the buck.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Thanks, blessedtoo. I’ll check The World Over if I can find the time.

I agree that the bishops should not interpret the canon differently but it “seemed” to make sense that each bishop had responsibility for the members of the church in their diocese. But then again, maybe that is just passing the buck.

I agree with you Harvey. Futher, Isn’t a bishop subject to his archbishop? Bishop Bruskewitz’s interpretation then, would not carry as much weight as the Archbishop’s interpretation. I still haven’t figured out how Archbishop Wuerl can stop people from distributing to pro abs. I’m sure those who distributed to pro-abs were privately chastized. That is something we will probably never know.

 

[bobzills]

People on CAF have been claiming that Protestants can receive Holy Communion, and this seems to be somewhat irregular, since most Protestants do not object to artificial birth control, and many are willing to allow for exceptions which will permit a woman to have an abortion.

 

[Ender]

I still haven’t figured out how Archbishop Wuerl can stop people from distributing to pro abs.

He could issue a statement that politicians who are publicly pro-abortion are not to receive communion, and if that still doesn’t work he could publicly name the politicians he is referring to.

I’m sure those who distributed to pro-abs were privately chastized.

I’m equally sure they have not been. If they have been told anything, eucharistic ministers have been directed not to withhold communion to those politicians since that is the stated policy of the archbishop.

bobzills:

People on CAF have been claiming that Protestants can receive Holy Communion, and this seems to be somewhat irregular, since most Protestants do not object to artificial birth control, and many are willing to allow for exceptions which will permit a woman to have an abortion.

I haven’t seen anyone claim that a Protestant can receive communion but regardless of who might have said this the fact remains that they cannot, though why we should expect the archbishop to enforce this rule is not clear … given that Protestants are no more a part of his diocese than senators or congressmen.

Ender