American Life League: We Insist Bishops Must Deny Pro-Abortion Politicians Communion

[fix]

At times they may correctly feel compelled to exercise the right, or even perform the duty, of making known to their pastors and to others their views “on matters which concern the good of the Church.”

Note the first sentence, just by virtue of Judi’s lack of personal detachment (she has a direct paid interest via her role in the American Life League) she should have been even slower to criticize and act against the Bishops. Then when you consider her tone and accusations, she sure didn’t show a great deal of humility. Nobody denies her right to discuss and confront in private. I’m not sure that failure to get her desired answer then gives her a de facto right to take it public.

Again, I am in no position to determine what her knowledge is or that she is in some way biased due to financial, or other, factors.

I maintain it is a prudential judgment. You may not agree and I may not agree but I cannot see she is objectively violating anything the Church teaches.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Again, I am in no position to determine what her knowledge is or that she is in some way biased due to financial, or other, factors.

I maintain it is a prudential judgment. You may not agree and I may not agree but I cannot see she is objectively violating anything the Church teaches.

It may be a prudential judgment to express our opinion via whatever medium we choose. This is not the issue.

It would be hilarious if the matter weren’t so serious that we have reduced this discussion to an issue of prudential judgment without discussing whether or not it serves her cause (nobody responded to what has happened in South Dakota and the effect it has had both in South Dakota and the nation to realistic strategies that actually could reduce abortions in the country) and whether her manner was appropriate and proper.

Was it proper that she compare in public that Bishops who do not adopt her particular remedy are equal to the Chief Priests who turned Christ over to Pilate?

Was it proper to assert in public that the Bishops who do not adopt her particular remedy have the intent is to cooperate with a mob whose intent is to desecrate the Eucharist? On top of her self-appointed position as the “Super Bishop” of America, she also claims omniscience.

Was it proper to infer that the Bishops hold the Eucharist in less regard than they do eagle eggs?

Was it proper for a person to exercise her lay perogatives to express her views to HER Bishop in a broad unspecific public charge using her paid position and cause as leverage?

 

[otjm]

OTJM,

You write well and wisely, and I can appreciate your points. How do you reconcile that with post 51 and Cardinal Arinze?

Again, I think the public statements by ALL are unwise.

I have no problem reconciling the Cardinal’s statement with the pastoral approach. If I remember correctly, the article noted that he was pushed on the question and he gave a short answer. Short answers are never complete answers. They are responses to specific questions, and need to be treated as such; in addition, they need to be treated in context.

The context of the interview was not a complete explication of the process and parameters of politicians and the Eucharist; it was not a precis of what a bishop could do nor a balancing of various issues that the bishop might be facing in the variety of choices he might have.

Another way of paraphrasing the Cardinal’s statement might be “All things being equal, a politician (who supports abortion) should be denied Communion”. The operative terms are “All things being equal”, and they rarely are.

Any public act a bishop takes has reprecussions. Some can be good, some excellent, some not so good, some disaterous. The bishops have a duty to protect the Eucharist from being profaned. They have a duty to protect other Catholics from being scandalized or mislead in moral matters. They also have a duty to do everything they can to reduce and eliminate abortion. There will be times that reasonable people can differ as to which of those is most important, or how a specific action will impact one or more of those areas.

The bottom line is that once an act is done, it can’t be undone; and if the public perception is entirely out of sync with the intent of the act, then the reality is that the act is out of sync with its intent, if for no other reason than that perception becomes reality.

If the public perceives the Church to be using a Church rule (one that most of the public has no understanding of whatsoever) to influence politics, then the reality is that the Church is trying to influence politics, for them End of that discussion. You and I may both have a different reality - that it is done because of what the Eucharist is, not because of politics. But our reality is held by a very small segment of the US population, and not enough to counteract the resulting vote swing towards pro-abortion poliiticans.

Further, as soon as a bishop, or bishops, move to publicly exclude one or more politicians, we immediately open Pandora’s box as to why those on the other side of the isle are not excluded, for example, on the death penalty or the Iraq war. Try and explain that to someone who has no clue whatsoever about the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic evil. Won’t happen; they will never get it.

I am tired of people who understand so little about a complex situation and try to reduce it to a simple answer - “The Cardinal said so; I believe the Cardinal; that ends the discussion”.

The problem with common sense is that it is not common.

 

[setter]

I agree. However, unlike the sex abuse scandal, it is not like there hasn’t been a public debate and lay expression on the issue. Judi Brown just didn’t like the decision of the Bishops so she decided to ratchet it up by using inappropriate accusations, judgments regarding motive, and caricatures (See post 29).

I concede that there are valid interpretations and opinions on both sides.

Personally, I like the idea of denial. I like that it is slowly spreading as it shows it is the result of the internal working of the Holy Spirit rather than a rash coordinated fiat that would have perceptions with Catholics and non-Catholics it is politically motivated.

What you label as “a rash coordinated fiat”, I see as a decisive “enough is enough already”.

Just like the fringe element destroyed the chance to outlaw abortions and have a solid case to take to the Supreme Court (see my earlier post about what happened in South Dakota the past two years), Judi Brown has now formally placed the issue of denial of communion in the political abortion fight.

Interesting how you denigrate and blame the heroic, putting themselves on the firing line, Catholics and Catholic organizations, which are called in God’s army to wage hand to hand battle with the evil of abortion.

With friends like this, the pro-life cause doesn’t need any enemies.

Anyone considering Judi Brown an enemy of the pro-life cause is part of the counterproductive fringe element, IMHO.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Interesting how you denigrate and blame the heroic, putting themselves on the firing line, Catholics and Catholic organizations, which are called in God’s army to wage hand to hand battle with the evil of abortion.

Anyone considering Judi Brown an enemy of the pro-life cause is part of the counterproductive fringe element, IMHO.

What those arrogant people did in South Dakota to set back the entire pro-life cause was not heroic. It was grounded in egotism and self-righteousness. I personally lived it. For your information, most of the informed Catholics and Catholic organizations were aggessively trying to stay the original strategy. But those who insisted it was all or nothing used every tactic possible (mostly threatening to claim in public that they weren’t really pro-life).

We were on the verge of having the right test case to challenge Roe v. Wade. Now it is gone. Including our Catholic Governor, Catholic President Pro Tem of the Senate, Catholic leaders of both parties, people had been working years to get the political stars aligned so we could actually have the first realistic test case against Roe v. Wade.

And just when we were on the precipice of the first meaningful victory in 30 years, johnny come latelys showed up and wanted to have “all or nothing”.

You might have standing to say alot of things but do not say that I denigrated the heroic on the firing line. I know who the heroes were and it wasn’t those who came to the party late and then threatened those who had been on the firing line for years with the baseless charge they weren’t “truly pro-life.” If your charge above is indicative of the wrecklessness and lack of basis for your other statements, you are not part of the solution.

If Judi’s letter on the Bishops is any indication of her work for American Life League, she sure appears to be part of the problem and not the solution.

 

[fix]

So far all I can determine is that a few people hold strong opinions and simply holding those seems to be enough to claim Brown is wrong and anyone who disagrees with decades of inaction by many bishops is wrong and simple minded.

 

[Orionthehunter]

So far all I can determine is that a few people hold strong opinions and simply holding those seems to be enough to claim Brown is wrong and anyone who disagrees with decades of inaction by many bishops is wrong and simple minded.

Not once have I or anyone that I can recall who have criticized Ms. Brown regarding her tactic have made a single statement for or against what the Bishops are doing or not doing. All that has been done is that her tactic, method and her statements were inappropriate.

 

[setter]

What those arrogant people did in South Dakota to set back the entire pro-life cause was not heroic. …

You obviously have an axe to grind with these folks, however, please don’t stray off topic and seek to cross contaminate Judi Brown and the ALL with guilt by association tactics.

You might have standing to say alot of things but do not say that I denigrated the heroic on the firing line. I know who the heroes were and it wasn’t those who came to the party late and then threatened those who had been on the firing line for years with the baseless charge they weren’t “truly pro-life.” If your charge above is indicative of the wrecklessness and lack of basis for your other statements, you are not part of the solution.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Setter: You obviously have an axe to grind with these folks, however, please don’t stray off topic and seek to cross contaminate Judi Brown and the ALL with guilt by association tactics.

It was you who said they were heroic. If you find them heroic, I guess it makes sense you would consider someone who says the following are heroic:

That Bishops who do not adopt her particular remedy are equal to the Chief Priests who turned Christ over to Pilate.

That Bishops who do not adopt her particular remedy have the intent is to cooperate with a mob whose intent is to desecrate the Eucharist? On top of her self-appointed position as the “Super Bishop” of America, she also claims omniscience.

That the Bishops hold the Eucharist in less regard than they do eagle eggs?

From Setter: … in your opinion …time yet to agree to disagree?

If you think what she said was appropriate (see above) and you think it appropriate that a person in a paid position on a particular issue to use that position to admonish Bishops in a way that is intended to accuse them of not really being pro-life or not loving the Eucharist to take a pastoral action that furthers her employer, it is time to disagree.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I tried to edit this post and time had expired:

Originally Posted by fix
So far all I can determine is that a few people hold strong opinions and simply holding those seems to be enough to claim Brown is wrong and anyone who disagrees with decades of inaction by many bishops is wrong and simple minded.

Orion’s initial response: Not once have I or anyone that I can recall who have criticized Ms. Brown regarding her tactic have made a single statement for or against what the Bishops are doing or not doing. All that has been done is that her tactic, method and her statements were inappropriate.

I need to be clear. I did say that I it is preferrable that individual Bishops do take independent action over time to deny communion to such politicians so as not to inappropriately strenghten their political hand or make them “false martyrs”). More importantly, I think it important that it happen independently and for pastoral reasons as it conforms with the Church’s teaching about how the pastoral care of the floci is the near-exclusive perogative of the Bishop.

This principal is critical if long-term and long-lasting improvements are to happen in our Church.

But I do wonder why one would try to avoid my direct comments and try to denigrate me personally by saying that I agree with inaction by Bishops or have called Judi and her supporters “simple minded.” I happen to think Judi knew what she was doing and it was calculated.

 

[Sixtus]

Fis says:

Originally Posted by Sixtus
May God have mercy on the poor soul of a bishop foolish enough to set himself up as judge, jury and judgment without mercyMat 7: 1-3

You must have strong feelings about this then:

I have the most profound respect for the Blessed Sacrament. I refuse even to touch it!I for one would never condone anyone receiving it unworthily.

I also believe the Church should take steps to ensure the faithful are aware of the gravity of receiving HIm unworthily but
I also believe that we do not know what is in the heart of a receiver who presents to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

Unless we can be absolutely certain that a grave act of sacrilige is about to occur, then I think we should leave the judgment to Almighty God.

It is not given to us to judge. Least of all an unworthy wretch like me. It is enough that God does not judge me, I do not care to look to see the spinter in my brothers eye, in fact cannot see it as I am blinded by the log in my own eye!!!

 

[fix]

Fis says:

I have the most profound respect for the Blessed Sacrament. I refuse even to touch it!I for one would never condone anyone receiving it unworthily.

I also believe the Church should take steps to ensure the faithful are aware of the gravity of receiving HIm unworthily but
I also believe that we do not know what is in the heart of a receiver who presents to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

Unless we can be absolutely certain that a grave act of sacrilige is about to occur, then I think we should leave the judgment to Almighty God.

It is not given to us to judge. Least of all an unworthy wretch like me. It is enough that God does not judge me, I do not care to look to see the spinter in my brothers eye, in fact cannot see it as I am blinded by the log in my own eye!!!

It is given to the bishops to judge if one is a manifest sinner. Are you claiming one cannot know if one’s public words and voting record are contrary to Church teaching?

The grave circumstances of the age in which we live, the obligation to proclaim the Faith in all its purity, the need to protect the Sacraments from sacrilege, and the obligation to eliminate grave scandal amongst the faithful all impel the bishop to publicly and courageously inquire among the clergy and laity of his diocese as to who amongst those Catholic politicians having a domicile in his territory are publicly supporting abortion or a right to choose, in accord with Canon 1717, No. 1. Evidence verifiable in the external forum should be presented along with any information.
A Twelve Step Program for Bishops

 

[setter]

It was you who said they were heroic. If you find them heroic, I guess it makes sense you would consider someone who says the following are heroic:

That Bishops who do not adopt her particular remedy are equal to the Chief Priests who turned Christ over to Pilate.

That Bishops who do not adopt her particular remedy have the intent is to cooperate with a mob whose intent is to desecrate the Eucharist? On top of her self-appointed position as the “Super Bishop” of America, she also claims omniscience.

That the Bishops hold the Eucharist in less regard than they do eagle eggs?

Taken in context, her comments (which include the citation of other astute commentators) are clear, cutting, entirely appropriate, respectful of the office of bishop, and long overdue. What you (and similar others) seem to be preoccupied with is keeping negligent and spineless bishops above the fray of accountability, all in the name of political expediency and face saving. The strategy of appeasement is a failed strategy as evident by the increasing boldness that Catholic political figures mock the Church and yet seek to reap the harvest of association. Talk about cooperation with evil.

If you think what she said was appropriate (see above) and you think it appropriate that a person in a paid position on a particular issue to use that position to admonish Bishops in a way that is intended to accuse them of not really being pro-life or not loving the Eucharist to take a pastoral action that furthers her employer, it is time to disagree.

The actions, or rather inaction, of these bishops has all but allowed evil to fester and prosper. I somehow could not ever imagine St. Paul taking this strategy of appeasement when the arena of private instruction and admonistion failed to bring about repentance and conversion. Rather, he called out evil for evil in the public debate of his time, and especially amongst members of the same household.

*“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” * ~ Edmund Burke

Over the last four years American Life League has sought, through advertising, public commentary, personal communications, and other means to invite the Catholic bishops of our nation to enforce a particular Church law that deals with the protection of Christ who is truly present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

During the process of our campaign, which is ongoing as I write, some have claimed that our actions are disrespectful of the office of bishop. But these very commentators have not been able to bring to our attention a single statement or phrase that in any way attacks either the office of bishop or a particular bishop by name. In fact, it is my contention that if we were to sink to that level, our entire effort would be derailed and despicable, because first and foremost, we as Catholics are called to respect the office of bishop and the tremendous honor that the office brings to those who have received it.

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030207.html

 

[Ham1]

Taken in context, her comments (which include the citation of other astute commentators) are clear, cutting, entirely appropriate, respectful of the office of bishop, and long overdue. What you (and similar others) seem to be preoccupied with is keeping negligent and spineless bishops above the fray of accountability, all in the name of political expediency and face saving. The strategy of appeasement is a failed strategy as evident by the increasing boldness that Catholic political figures mock the Church and yet seek to reap the harvest of association. Talk about cooperation with evil.
The actions, or rather inaction, of these bishops has all but allowed evil to fester and prosper. I somehow could not ever imagine St. Paul taking this strategy of appeasement when the arena of private instruction and admonistion failed to bring about repentance and conversion. Rather, he called out evil for evil in the public debate of his time, and especially amongst members of the same household.

*“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” * ~ Edmund Burke

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030207.html

There may be some who want to support weak Bishop’s or see pro-abortion politicians continue to receive communion. I do not.

Let me be clear on my position:

1. I completely oppose Judie Brown’s actions as I believe them to be totally inappropriate and disreseptful to our Bishops. She is out of line as a Catholic and is treating the Body of Christ as a political organization.
2. I totally support not only withholding of communion to politicians who give scandal. Not only that, I support the excommunication of each and every one of these pro-abortion politicians. I pray that the Bishop’s will do the right thing all over America.

But I do not condone public political campaigns to urge the Bishop’s to do so. As a pro-life Catholic, Judie Brown’s behavior disappoints me.

 

[Sixtus]

It is given to the bishops to judge if one is a manifest sinner. Are you claiming one cannot know if one’s public words and voting record are contrary to Church teaching?

Can you be sure that is what was said or is it more likely what a politician is reported as having said!!

I cannot speak for USA or European politics or press reporting. I can speak for the UK. I can confirm they are not interested in the truth nor anything remotely connected to it.

The press are interested in twisting, distorting, journalistic licence and poetry to sell newspapers. It is after all not wilful misrepresentation, but one’s interpretation. One is [in a democracy] free to interpret how one thinks!

Unless I hear the words from the politicians mouth first hand, then I do not blieve one word, not one syllable or phoneme of that which s/he is quoted as saying

 

[setter]

Can you be sure that is what was said or is it more likely what a politician is reported as having said!!

Unless I hear the words from the politicians mouth first hand, then I do not blieve one word, not one syllable or phoneme of that which s/he is quoted as saying

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., like John Kerry a Catholic who supports abortion rights, said Thursday she will continue to ask for Holy Communion in spite of Vatican opposition to pro-choice Catholics doing so.

“I fully intend to receive Communion, one way or another. That’s very important to me,” Pelosi told reporters during her weekly press conference.

Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat who was raised in a devout Italian Catholic home, told reporters, “I believe that my position on choice is one that is consistent with my Catholic upbringing, which said that every person has a free will and has the responsibility to live their lives in a way that they would have to account for in the end.”

“I’m certainly concerned when the church comes together and says it’s going to sanction people in public office for speaking their conscience and what they believe,” she said.

usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-29-pelosi-communion_x.htm

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. .
I cannot speak for USA or European politics or press reporting. I can speak for the UK. I can confirm they are not interested in the truth nor anything remotely connected to it.

. . .

Are you referring to the politicians or the press? It is my impression that both value the truth very highly

• that is why they use it so frugally.

 

[Sixtus]

Are you referring to the politicians or the press?

BOTH

When they have gone as far as they can, there is a promising career for both in either

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Setter: Taken in context, her comments (which include the citation of other astute commentators) are clear, cutting, entirely appropriate, respectful of the office of bishop, and long overdue.

Will you just be clear and say that you believe that following assertions she made were appropriate and you agree with them. Or tell me that this isn’t what she said or inferred.

• That Bishops who do not adopt her particular remedy are equal to the Chief Priests who turned Christ over to Pilate.
• That Bishops who do not adopt her particular remedy have the intent is to cooperate with a mob whose intent is to desecrate the Eucharist? On top of her self-appointed position as the “Super Bishop” of America, she also claims omniscience.
• That the Bishops hold the Eucharist in less regard than they do eagle eggs?

From Setter: What you (and similar others) seem to be preoccupied with is keeping negligent and spineless bishops above the fray of accountability, all in the name of political expediency and face saving.

Besides your disrespectful characterization of Bishops, it is not I who think this is a “political” matter but you who think it appropriate to treat Bishops like they are elected officials. Please do not pull me into your gutter.

From Setter: The strategy of appeasement is a failed strategy as evident by the increasing boldness that Catholic political figures mock the Church and yet seek to reap the harvest of association. Talk about cooperation with evil.

If you are speaking to me, I have probably cooperated with evil by keeping this thread alive. After this post, you can have the last word.

From Setter: The actions, or rather inaction, of these bishops has all but allowed evil to fester and prosper. I somehow could not ever imagine St. Paul taking this strategy of appeasement when the arena of private instruction and admonistion failed to bring about repentance and conversion. Rather, he called out evil for evil in the public debate of his time, and especially amongst members of the same household.

Well, your apparent omniscience notwithstanding, I prefer to trust the ordained with regards to Pastoral matters.

A quote cited by Setter: *“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” * ~ Edmund Burke

Just so I’m sure I understand your point, is this a statement directed at me or these Bishops you so obviously despise? Or both?

 

[Apherius]

All,

If years before the molestation scandal broke, a group of the laity would have publicly released information tthat such actions were taking place, would not have some of the great evil that occurred been stopped?

I am confused about this issue. Isn’t it clear that despite the seemingly solid defense of the unborn by the Church in its doctrine, many priests and even Bishops refuse to defend it? How long are we supposed to pray before something is done?