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

[otjm]

This is incorrect; the action is mandatory.

*Fifthly, the discipline **requires ***the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy.

No, it is not mandatory until Canon Law procedures have been followed; that is, there is a process to reach the point of barring a person from Communion. It is not a simple “You siad this and I bar you”. The discipline may ultimately (and within a reasonably short time if followed) result in a person being barred, but the process must be followed.
… the question regarding the objective state of Catholic politicians who knowingly and willingly hold opinions contrary to the natural moral law would hardly seem to change from place to place.

This is also incorrect. The responsibility of the minister of the eucharist is not limited.

Bishops may and have said that certain persons should not present themselves for Communion; that is a bit different than specifically barring a person from Communion; again, there is a process that must be followed before specifically barring a person from Communion; Vlasny may be able, for example, to publicly say to Biden that he should not represent himself for Communion when he comes through Oregon; that is different from Valzny instructing all priests in the dioceses that they are to refuse him Communion.

… the question regarding the objective state of Catholic politicians who knowingly and willingly hold opinions contrary to the natural moral law would hardly seem to change from place to place.

No, it can’t. The scandal is that they receive communion unworthily. The scandal persists so long as they continue to receive and is not eliminated by saying … what? that “we know this is scandalous but we will continue to permit it?”

The above quotes are from Abp. Burke’s paper The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion. Given that Burke is now the head of what is essentially the Church’s supreme court for canon law, his opinion is significant. Given that he wrote this opinion before BXVI appointed him to that position should lend extra significance to it.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

Ender

Archbishop Burke’s analysis is an excellent presentation of the Canon Law parts relevant to the issue. There are certain bishops who need to get a backbone and apply it appropriately. What you seem to not understand is jurisdictional issues. Valzny has no business barring Biden, for example, because Biden does not reside in this dioces nor does he work here - Washington D.C. is a bit far. Nor does Valzny have the opportunity with Biden to go through the process that is required before a person is barred; Biden is nowhere around to meet with. The bishop in Biden’s diocese where he lives, and arguably in D.C. where he works and resides while he is acitve daily in the Senate have that ability through jurisdiction. Should they bar him, then that barring should be recognized by other bishops until lifted.

Barring someone from Communion is not an ulitmate penalty as it comes in as a lesser penalty below excommunication. It is, however, a very serious penalty that has a process. You and I have no disagreement that it should be applied appropriately; we disagree as to who by and where that should be done. It is a very serious penalty, has a procedure which needs to be followed, and should be applied as necessary.

There are a whole lot of people who don’t know what Canon Law requires, and don’t particularly care. It is an issue that needs to be taken up at a time that is not open to creating greater problems than we already have. Prudence is part of the equation.

 

[Jerome42]

In my opinion, Bishops/Priests would in fact be denying Holy Communion to Catholics who have already excommunicated themselves by their actions (latae sententiae), much like a woman who has gotten an abortion, in violation of Church Teachings. All other rationalizations in opposition would not apply. Confession and Penance are the only remedies

 

[otjm]

In my opinion, Bishops/Priests would in fact be denying Holy Communion to Catholics who have already excommunicated themselves by their actions (latae sententiae), much like a woman who has gotten an abortion, in violation of Church Teachings. All other rationalizations in opposition would not apply. Confession and Penance are the only remedies

The issue, however, is not an automatic excommunication, which the bishop does not enter into formally - it is automatic - but rather the public “sentance” of refusing Communion to a politician, etc.

Most generally, the bishops, and probably the vast majority of priests don’t know when someone has had an abortion; further, they may not know (the futher fact) of Confession. Thus there is no denying Communion to those who present themselves for it as there is no knowledge base. It is then solely a matter to the individual to acknowlege that they are excommunicated and respond accordingly.

On the other hand, if a bishop imposes the penalty of refusing Communion (as different from publicly telling an individual they should not receive), the bishop could impose that also on priests within his diocese; that is, it would then become a public (and publicized) matter, which could only be lifted by the bishop, and the priests would be required to comply with the bishop’s directive.

 

[elts1956]

This is incorrect; the action is mandatory.

No Ender, this is not correct. Otherwise all of the Bishops in the U.S. would be denying communion to all who have commited the sin of public scandal because of their support for abortion. There are many, many Bishops who are failing to do their moral duty in this instance, but I do not believe anyone, even Pope Bendict XVI can force them to obey the moral law in this. They have much freedom for making their own decisions. I don’t understand this either, but that is the way it is.*

Fifthly, the discipline **requires ***the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy.

I don’t know whose “discipline” you are talking about, but this is not in place as yet. In some instances, IF the priest is supported by his Bishop, or is strong enough to stand on his own he will defend the Holy Eucharist from being defiled.

There is one Bishop or Archbishop on the East Coast who has said he does not ‘EXPECT’ ANY priest in his parish to refuse communion to ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS abortion.

… the question regarding the objective state of Catholic politicians who knowingly and willingly hold opinions contrary to the natural moral law would hardly seem to change from place to place.

This is also incorrect. The responsibility of the minister of the eucharist is limited. Again, as I see it, (haven’t really checked in to this) a Bishop, Archbishop has no right to say what should happen, or not happen in another clergy’s diocese. This would cause some stepping on toes. I don’t know if there is a blanket ruling for this or not. Can you picture the infighting if this would happen if one clergyman would step inside the ring/territory of another? OUCH!

No, it can’t. The scandal is that they receive communion unworthily. The scandal persists so long as they continue to receive and is not eliminated by saying … what? that “we know this is scandalous but we will continue to permit it?”

The above quotes are from Abp. Burke’s paper The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion. Given that Burke is now the head of what is essentially the Church’s supreme court for canon law, his opinion is significant. Given that he wrote this opinion before BXVI appointed him to that position should lend extra significance to it.

Yes, Archbishop Burke is one of the few clergyman who has some backbone and isn’t too concerned about being “politically correct.” BUT, even he is ignored by many bishops who either blatantly do their own thing, or stay silent about the scandals of Catholic, (an oxymoran) pro-abortion, public officials receiving communion. We as laity can do nothing about it, but be as vocal as we can be.

I too am very frustrated and very definitely disappointed in some of our Church (oxkymoron) not leading in this matter.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

Ender/QUOTE
Hello Ender. I understand the correct ruling on this is as

 

[Jerome42]

The issue, however, is not an automatic excommunication, which the bishop does not enter into formally - it is automatic - but rather the public “sentance” of refusing Communion to a politician, etc.

Most generally, the bishops, and probably the vast majority of priests don’t know when someone has had an abortion; further, they may not know (the futher fact) of Confession. Thus there is no denying Communion to those who present themselves for it as there is no knowledge base. It is then solely a matter to the individual to acknowlege that they are excommunicated and respond accordingly.

Are we forgetting that God Knows what is in the minds of man. We can plead ignorance only so long. In today’s media age it is getting harder and harder to ignore reality. This is why this discourse is so very, very important. I should also hope that anyone calling themselves a Catholic would most certainly know of the Sacrament of Confession(Reconcilliation).

Until recently, the Laity had been lax in bringing these issues to the forefront. Now we need to make up for lost time.

 

[otjm]

Are we forgetting that God Knows what is in the minds of man. We can plead ignorance only so long. In today’s media age it is getting harder and harder to ignore reality. This is why this discourse is so very, very important. I should also hope that anyone calling themselves a Catholic would most certainly know of the Sacrament of Confession(Reconcilliation).

Until recently, the Laity had been lax in bringing these issues to the forefront. Now we need to make up for lost time.

I don’t disagree with you. I was simply pointing out that the OP started about banning Catholic politicians from Communion, not the question of how God may judge them about their stance on abortion.

 

[elts1956]

However, one notes with sorrow that a couple of newspaper headlines on the molestation scandals got a lot more action from the bishops than many years of quiet complaints.

This is true, until these scandals were made public by someone standing up to the clergy and stating these abuses DID indeed happen, it had been shoved under the rug for decades. A friend of mine who is a sister told me that early on she had told her Bishop of similar actions taking place in the parish where she taught. She was ignored.

It seems to me that SOME, (not nearly enough) Bishops who do hold to the truths and moral values of the Church they represent are being more vocal about the scandals done by our public officials who claim to be Catholic, but support abortion. Others have either forgotten their true duties to be leaders of the “flock”, or have too little backbone to say anything about it.

We need more Bishops who take their duties and their Faith seriously enough to speak out and say these politicians are wrong and are giving public scandal.

 

[elts1956]

However, one notes with sorrow that a couple of newspaper headlines on the molestation scandals got a lot more action from the bishops than many years of quiet complaints.

American Life League: We Insist Bishops Must Deny Pro-Abortion Politicians Communion, Here’s Why

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

Hooray for Judi Brown for calling it the way it is:thumbsup:

Personally, I don’t think the Bishops she is calling to task will budge an inch. If their conscience is not formed in the right way at this time, telling them they MUST do this, or that is not going to make a difference, nor will it help them in the formation of morality and conscience regarding politicals in their diocese/archdiocese.

The only way this type of person will sit up and listen is if we refuse to tithe, or contribute to their parish fund until we are heard. This is not fair to the Parish Priest, but he could also take a stand in this matter by refusing communion to public abortion supporters and legislators who call themselves Catholic. If he doesn’t then he is probably afraid of reprimands by the Bishop who is in no position morally to do this.

 

[elts1956]

It is totally inappropriate for Judie Brown or anyone else to “call the Bishop’s to the carpet” publically. To use public opinion as push against the Church is offensive and un-Catholic. It does real harm to the Body of Christ to play this in the court of public opinion. This is not a political campaign and should not be treated as such. Don’t get me wrong I think all of the Bishop’s should refuse Communion to such politicians, but I do think that this is not the right way to address the situation with the Bishop’s. The appropriate action would be to write personal letters and meet with the Bishop’s privately to explain her position.

Right Ham. The personal letters will really rock their world. We who think those Bishops are in error by allowing such public scandal do not think we are greater, nor do we know more “than the Pope”. What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. In this instance this should be crystal clear. If it isn’t to some prelates, then they need to be reminded they are being watched by the Faithful who are trying to protect their Faith. That THEY, the Bishops, should be the leaders of “hu/mens”. They have left the faithful to wander about in confusion. This confusion has been allowed for over 45 and more years. It is time we got back “to basics”.

It is a sad commentary on the Roman Catholic Church when the sheep must be the shepherds.

 

[elts1956]

It is totally inappropriate for Judie Brown or anyone else to “call the Bishop’s to the carpet” publically. To use public opinion as push against the Church is offensive and un-Catholic. It does real harm to the Body of Christ to play this in the court of public opinion. This is not a political campaign and should not be treated as such. Don’t get me wrong I think all of the Bishop’s should refuse Communion to such politicians, but I do think that this is not the right way to address the situation with the Bishop’s. The appropriate action would be to write personal letters and meet with the Bishop’s privately to explain her position.

Doesn’t matter. If the Bishop’s didn’t make a move after meetings (which I doubt happened), the proper response is NEVER to attack the Bishop’s publically. The thing to do is pray and trust in the Holy Spirit to guide his Church. This is NOT a political matter even though it involves politicians. We should never treat the Church like a political party.

“The thing to do is pray and trust the Holy Spirit to guide His Church.” Perhaps He is, through us who find the flagrant disregard of public scandal to be abhorent.

 

[elts1956]

Absolutely you can remind them. It is our duty, even. But fraternal correction does not occur on websites or in national newspapers. Yes, we correct and encourage but all PRIVATELY to our families, friends and even our bishops. You would never correct your natural father in a newspaper, why would you correct your spiritual father in such a way? Is it to shame them into doing what is right? That is certainly not the idea of Christian fraternal correction.

Judie Brown is way out of bounds on this one and is hurting the Church. Such actions undermine the Church as a whole. Those outside the Church look at such a thing and say, “how can they have the truth when they have in-fighting like any other religion.” It attacks the unity of the Church.

Sometimes strong measures are needed. It seems polite letters stating our concerns have not made a difference. Those outside the Church look at a well known Public Politician who claims to be Catholic, yet advances the right to abortion and say, “See, those Catholics, they claim to have the moral truth, yet they are hypocritical in this. Why hasn’t this official been reprimanded?” The difficulty Ham, is in this instance, the public official not only represents a political party of choice, but also represents the Church.

 

[elts1956]

Absolutely you can remind them. It is our duty, even. But fraternal correction does not occur on websites or in national newspapers. Yes, we correct and encourage but all PRIVATELY to our families, friends and even our bishops. You would never correct your natural father in a newspaper, why would you correct your spiritual father in such a way? Is it to shame them into doing what is right? That is certainly not the idea of Christian fraternal correction.

Judie Brown is way out of bounds on this one and is hurting the Church. Such actions undermine the Church as a whole. Those outside the Church look at such a thing and say, “how can they have the truth when they have in-fighting like any other religion.” It attacks the unity of the Church.

Perhaps what Judie Brown writes is seen by some as causing disunity in the Chruch. That is probably the impression those who have not bothered to study the situation in depth will have. This will be the impression of those who are pro-choice, or pro-abortion. But it will not cause disunity among those who want the truths of the Church to be upheld. So far, Judie Brown and those of us expressing our concern are causing no more disunity in the Church than that which has existed for the past four decades. It is the Bishops who are lacking in moral fiber who are causing the disunity in this matter.

 

[elts1956]

Absolutely you can remind them. It is our duty, even. But fraternal correction does not occur on websites or in national newspapers. Yes, we correct and encourage but all PRIVATELY to our families, friends and even our bishops. You would never correct your natural father in a newspaper, why would you correct your spiritual father in such a way? Is it to shame them into doing what is right? That is certainly not the idea of Christian fraternal correction.

Judie Brown is way out of bounds on this one and is hurting the Church. Such actions undermine the Church as a whole. Those outside the Church look at such a thing and say, “how can they have the truth when they have in-fighting like any other religion.” It attacks the unity of the Church.

There is no public fraternal correction. Judie is totally out of line. Public criticism of the Church undermines the Church’s position of authority. Her behavior is inappropriate.

In this instance regarding public admonition of Public Officials, whom I don’t call Catholic, the Chruch is undermining itself. Can’t you see/feel/understand that?

 

[elts1956]

I agree with this. Heck, if I publicly corrected my associate for chattering on her phone at work I could get fired for it. I can’t imagine taking this type of scorn to the level presented here.

ALL is my favourite pro-life group and I like Judie Brown, but this tastes a lot like an association I know…holier than the Pope.

I personally don’t feel I am “holier than the Pope”., but I am gravely concerned that more Bishops who have a lot of freedom to make decisions for their parishes and congregants don’t speak out. This is beyond what I understand and is beyond what I was taught. Relativism has made inroads deeply into the moral consciences of many Bishops.

 

[elts1956]

I agree with this. Heck, if I publicly corrected my associate for chattering on her phone at work I could get fired for it. I can’t imagine taking this type of scorn to the level presented here.

ALL is my favourite pro-life group and I like Judie Brown, but this tastes a lot like an association I know…holier than the Pope.

please, our society is sick and we have had for the most part incompetent blind bishops in our church leading the blind. it is our duty to admonish the sinner–a spiritual work of mercy–publically when necessary. since when does God want us to remain silient in the face of injustice??

the only thing that fixed the sex abuse scandal was the publicity of it. the bishops were more worried about their careers than their duty to lay their life down for the flock.

 

[elts1956]

Given canon 212, I would not call her actions appropriate. I don’t think ads in national newspapers or websites show “due reverence” and especially harm the common good.

To criticize the Church publically weakens the Church to all outsiders.

Don’t think so. Not standing up with some backbone and supporting what is right is what is weakening the Church even as some of the walls are vibrating.

 

[elts1956]

Given canon 212, I would not call her actions appropriate. I don’t think ads in national newspapers or websites show “due reverence” and especially harm the common good.

To criticize the Church publically weakens the Church to all outsiders.

Thanks but we disagree. I would not assume that she has addressed each Bishop individually on the subject. Further, there is nothing in Church teaching that says we ought to correct them “publically” - privately, yes.

When those outside see the Body of Christ as filled with political factions attempting to manipulate each other it makes the Church look like any other protestant church. It makes it look like we don’t possess the fullness of the Truth. This is a serious diservice to those who are seeking the Truth and have not yet found the Church.

You are right and that is the frightening element. Our Holy Mother Church could be at the beginning of looking like a non-Catholic denomination mainly because the ABSOLUTE truths are not upheld and public politicians give public scandal to the Church and to those who do not know her. They do this because they are not given consequences that weak members and unbelievers can see.

Why is it, we the laity, must believe in these ABSOLUTE truths while some Bishops do not defend them? This will be the question that is next on the lips and in the minds of those who are barely grasping the truths of the Church. This will also be the question on the lips and in the minds of those who are looking for and not finding truth.

 

[elts1956]

Where does that say anything about the correction being public? That is what is at issue. I never claimed that the Bishop’s are above correction just that it must be done privately.

If the person being corrected is a public figure, even a Bishop, who will give scandal to a public population by avoidance of an issue, then I think that very “public” person should be called to task “publically”.

 

[elts1956]

Where does that say anything about the correction being public? That is what is at issue. I never claimed that the Bishop’s are above correction just that it must be done privately.

See my below comments. Are you really saying that a Catholic who publicly implies that Bishops hold eagle eggs in higher esteem than the Eucharist, are effectively intentionally allowing the desecration of the Eucharist, and are comparable to the leaders who turned Christ over to Pilate isn’t egregious?

Judi Brown, yourself and myself are not called to “insist” how our Bishops deal with this situation. Call my position what it you want. And you wonder why the Bishops and Pope don’t have the standing with the laity. Whether it be from the right or the left, criticism has a price.

Here are some words from her letter:

“Jesus was surely referring to the “chief priests” when he said to Pilate, “he who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” (John 18:35; 19:11)” Wow, now Judi is a theologian. It looks like she is practicing what some of our non-Catholic Christians do to Scripture. Are you saying you are a theologian in better standing? It takes a theologian to know a theologian? Or a non-theologian?
Then, look at her silly analogy of St. Tarsicus which she employs effectively but decietfully. The mob intended to desecrate the Eucharist. While they are likely in grave sin and are definitely (IMHO) committing grave matter, the intent of the politicians in question have no such intent. So receiving the Host while in Mortal Sin is not a desecration? Oh, I see, you know their intent, but we don’t?But Judi then tries to use this analogy to accuse the Bishops of effective intentional neglect to protect the Eucharist. And this is not so?
We might all believe the Bishops are in error but it is scandalous to accuse them of such intent, especially since she has no direct knowledge of their intent. Their actions speak for them.This itself is an offense against the truth and a grave manner.

Finally, her analogy that the law holds a bald eagle to higher esteem than the Eucharist to imply that this is the same position of our Bishops is so dishonest and scandalous. Frankly, the closer I look at this the more offended I am. She could have used a better analogy. A bit confusing.

I consider her attack, while cleverly concealed from being overt, is just that an attack on our Shepherds and objectively wrong.

The non-reception of Communion for anyone living outside the Church is to be self-denied by the individual. Why do we insist on our own personal pound of flesh and not just leave it to God? They have been properly informed.

Because they have committed PUBLIC SCANDAL :banghead: :banghead: How many times does this difference need to be explained to you?

 

[elts1956]

I was being sarcastic. The Catechism will not be changed to strike out the word “charitable” and add in public admonishment and ordering to those who reject advice and instruction given.

How protestant to conclude that a lay person is competent to instruct a Bishop on how to do his job. Bishops are the primary teachers of the faith in their diocese. This too is Church law and articulated in the Catechism. Who appointed Judi as the “super Bishop” to “insist” all the Bishops in the US conform to her wishes? I must have missed the press release from the Vatican.

As I said in a previous post: The word “insist” from outside the fraternal order of Bishops and in some instances, inside it, does not exist. The Bishops, many times, are a law unto themselves. They have a lot of freedom in making decisions. BUT they are only men and can make mistakes. Sadly, Judie Brown’s words will be ignored by those too proud to listen the the frustration and anxiety felt for the Church by those who know instinctively the laws that should be supported. It was, in part, the ignoring by the Church of Luther and his concerns that caused a break of catastrophic proportions. While I do not feel this is imminent, nor would I ever even “think” of such a thing, remember the drops of water on the stone, drip, by drip, the stone wears away. This is what I am feeling when I do not see our leaders, who know better, not standing in defense of the Church and Her truths.

Oh, now I get it. The ends justify the means. Judi Brown is authorized to commit actions not normally allowed because of the righteousness of her cause. Now we are justifying the same argument the radical Muslim’s are using in Iraq.