Are Pro-Choice Catholics Allowed Communion?

[thistle]

No, I don’t want to keep it simple. Too many people can get categorized under the “Pro-Choice”-shouldn’t-get-Communion category if we’re not sure what we’re talking about.

I don’t support abortion, but I do acknowledge that it is legal in the US, and if I were running for office, I don’t think I’d have anti-abortion be a plank in my platform.

It is not complicated. Catholicism and pro-choice are incompatible.

Any Catholic who is pro-choice (i.e. in favour of killing an innocent life by abortion) is by definition committing a grave sin and not allowed to receive Communion.
Any Catholic who dies an unrepented pro-choice supporter condemns themselves to Hell.

It is totally irrelevant that abortion is legal in the US or any other country. That in no way mitigates the grave sin.

 

[MusicMan]

I ask the questions I do in the manner that I do because I recognize that it would take a monumental act of legislation to make abortion again illegal in the US. Politicians can have all the Pro-Life planks in their platforms that they want, but until they realize the enormity of the actual anti-abortion plank and commit to it, it’s just lipservice.

And then, we get caught up in this semantic battle of “it can only be Pro-Life or Pro-Death” and we lose people who want to conceptualize in shades of grey from the fight.

 

[benedictgal]

I ask the questions I do in the manner that I do because I recognize that it would take a monumental act of legislation to make abortion again illegal in the US. Politicians can have all the Pro-Life planks in their platforms that they want, but until they realize the enormity of the actual anti-abortion plank and commit to it, it’s just lipservice.

And then, we get caught up in this semantic battle of “it can only be Pro-Life or Pro-Death” and we lose people who want to conceptualize in shades of grey from the fight.

Please re-read the statement that the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger made in 2004 as prefect of the CDF. He is pretty clear-cut.

 

[CatholicFireman]

All I know is abortion (let’s call it what it is) is called intrinsically evil by the Church. I call that mortal sin so unless those catholics who support it truly repent then they should not receive Our Lord. Pax†

 

[ProVobis]

I agree with the posters who ask exactly what is pro-choice. If you’re an abortion supporter, as opposed to trying to prevent abortions, then you shouldn’t be receiving Communion. (Unless you confess and repent, of course.)

If you feel there should be more laws against abortion, that would be ok. However, if you feel there should be laws against but without major penalties against the abortioners, that would be a tough one to judge.

If you feel government should have no control or say over the economy or what each individual does with his/her own body, that also would be a tough one to judge.

Interestingly enough Ayn Rand, probably the strongest opponent of government except for protection of life, liberty, and property, found herself in a “pro-choice” position because of her consistent position against all government control. That she became more acceptable in women’s groups said a little more about her, though. Still, it would be tough to judge a person’s real motives in pushing a pro-choice/anti-choice agenda.

 

[MusicMan]

Please re-read the statement that the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger made in 2004 as prefect of the CDF. He is pretty clear-cut.

That letter does precious little to address the specifics of my question. edited]

 

[benedictgal]

That letter does precious little to address the specifics of my question. Perhaps, instead of *just * posting documents all the time, you’d like to join in the discussion.

[edited] The OP asked for documentation, which I have provided. If you were to read the entire document, whose link I posted, maybe it might help you to understand why Pro-Choice Catholics should not receive Holy Communion.

 

[EasterJoy]

That letter does precious little to address the specifics of my question. [edited]

[edited]

b) Nothing against her (and I’m sure she would agree), but what the Church teaches is far more important than what any of us holds as mere opinion. She happens to have many of the relevant facts at hand to post, which I think is a big contribution. IMHO, we get a much better and more fruitful discussion when we get the pertinent facts on the table first, and let the discussion go on in light of those.

c) I have come to find it refreshing that she generally knows the difference between what the Church teaches and what she thinks, and is better than most of us about making the difference clear when she posts.

d) Some of what she posts is also the opinions of bishops, rather than definitive teachings, but the bishop’s opinions still have more to do with what the direction the Church is actually going to head than ours do. I want to hear those opinions.

If you’re of the opinion that we don’t need a forum if all we’re going to do is post documents, I have to agree with you. I’m not interested in having a duel in Church documents any more than I’m interested in “discussions” where all that happens is that Bible verses are lobbed back and forth like grenades. But if some of us choose to do no more than run down the bibliographic materials we need to discuss the matter intelligently, that’s a contribution right there.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m in the minority, I guess, that thinks “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” and “pro-life” and “anti-abortion” are different things.

“Pro-choice” is the error that says that it is none of my business if other people want to sin, while “pro-abortion” is the error that says that abortion accomplishes a positive good and should be encouraged in certain segments of the population. These are very different errors, and there should be a way to talk about them as separate errors.

“Anti-abortion” speaks only to the desire to stop abortions. The term “pro-life”, on the other hand, speaks to a greater set of goals that include positively welcoming children, valuing the gift of each person at every stage of life, and so on. Having two different terms for those is quite valuable, too, I think.

So I think it would be better to speak of “the pro-choice error” rather than trying to make people who are pro-choice into people who are pro-abortion, if for no other reason that you don’t convince people they are in error by mischaracterizing the error they’ve fallen into. They’ll reject your assessment as incorrect, turn you off, and that will be that. Failure.

If you’re going to stop a particular error, you need to be concerned with more than just what the end result of it is. You also have to recognize how the error was made, too.

 

[CatholicFireman]

I’m in the minority, I guess, that thinks “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” and “pro-life” and “anti-abortion” are different things.

“Pro-choice” is the error that says that it is none of my business if other people want to sin, while “pro-abortion” is the error that says that abortion accomplishes a positive good and should be encouraged in certain segments of the population. These are very different errors, and there should be a way to talk about them as separate errors.

“Anti-abortion” speaks only to the desire to stop abortions. The term “pro-life”, on the other hand, speaks to a greater set of goals that include positively welcoming children, valuing the gift of each person at every stage of life, and so on. Having two different terms for those is quite valuable, too, I think.

So I think it would be better to speak of “the pro-choice error” rather than trying to make people who are pro-choice into people who are pro-abortion, if for no other reason that you don’t convince people they are in error by mischaracterizing the error they’ve fallen into. They’ll reject your assessment as incorrect, turn you off, and that will be that. Failure.

If you’re going to stop a particular error, you need to be concerned with more than just what the end result of it is. You also have to recognize how the error was made, too.

Hi EasterJoy,

I got a little confused (I’m still asleep) by your views/explanations. All I will say is that I am pro-life which means I believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. I also believe that this should not be interrupted with contraception. God Bless.

 

[EasterJoy]

What’s this thing you call anti-abortion? I only know of pro-life.

If, for instance, a government wants to stop abortions because the population was falling and it needs more young people to be born as cogs to run the future economy, and not because it put any value on each human being, that would be merely anti-abortion. It is also possible to think that abortion is wrong but to have no care for the children that don’t die. It is possible to want to force pregnant women to go to term just because you think they should, either for the wrong reasons (to punish women who have sex outside marriage, for instance) or for no good reason.

To be pro-life is to be anti-abortion, yes, but it is much more than that. It is to oppose abortion for the positive reason that you value each life, including the current spiritual and emotional well-being and eternal life of the mother and her doctor and nurses. (Not that anyone in secular politics care what we think abortion has to do with anyone else’s spiritual well-being.)

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, everyone. It is easy when discussing anything to do with abortion to go off on tangents, but for the sake of the OP and the fact that this is the Liturgy and Sacraments forum not the Apologetics forum, let’s keep to the topic of the thread. Thank you all.

 

[CatholicFireman]

Please stay on topic, everyone. It is easy when discussing anything to do with abortion to go off on tangents, but for the sake of the OP and the fact that this is the Liturgy and Sacraments forum not the Apologetics forum, let’s keep to the topic of the thread. Thank you all.

Ok. I’m done.

Sorry.

 

[EasterJoy]

Please stay on topic, everyone. It is easy when discussing anything to do with abortion to go off on tangents, but for the sake of the OP and the fact that this is the Liturgy and Sacraments forum not the Apologetics forum, let’s keep to the topic of the thread. Thank you all.

Having said that, sometimes semantics are important in explaining the issue fully.

When it comes to deciding whether one may receive Holy Communion, to have positively voted for policies that allow the choice of abortion (pro-choice) is enough to disqualify a Catholic from receiving Holy Communion. The person need not have gone so far as to support government policies that force or either directly or indirectly encourage women to procure abortions (pro-abortion).

It should go without saying that “safe, legal, and rare” does not cut it, even though there are a few very rarely-occuring exceptions in which medical abortions are morally permissible.

 

[MusicMan]

[edited] The OP asked for documentation, which I have provided. If you were to read the entire document, whose link I posted, maybe it might help you to understand why Pro-Choice Catholics should not receive Holy Communion.

So, explain it to me. Assume that I don’t understand the documents.

 

[benedictgal]

So, explain it to me. Assume that I don’t understand the documents.

Here is the document:

1. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. 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.

What I highlighted in bold, dark red, are some of the important points to consider. Those who support the fallacy of pro-choice are pretty much giving their ascent that abortion is alright. There is no such thing as being morally opposed to abortion and yet giving a woman the full support to do just that. The two are incompatible.

Now, in regards to the Catholic legislator, the statement says the following:

1. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

The former prefect of the CDF minces no words here. It is the pastor’s responsibility (and pastor can also mean bishop) to instruct the errant Catholic legislator on the errors of his stance.

The final statement also bears noting:

[N.B. A** Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.

When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

Thus, here is where the-now Holy Father makes it quite clear what action the “pro-choice” Catholic should take, namely not present himself for Holy Communion.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

What I highlighted in bold, dark red, are some of the important points to consider. Those who support the fallacy of pro-choice are pretty much giving their ascent that abortion is alright. There is no such thing as being morally opposed to abortion and yet giving a woman the full support to do just that. The two are incompatible.

The document talks about formal cooperation with abortion. Perhaps it would clear things up for the OP if you could briefly discuss formal cooperation v. material cooperation.

The former prefect of the CDF minces no words here. It is the pastor’s responsibility (and pastor can also mean bishop) to instruct the errant Catholic legislator on the errors of his stance.

The document states that the bishop and/or pastor are to inform the pro-choice politician that they should not be receiving communion. But if they are told not to receive communion but go ahead and do so anyways, I have yet to see anything that says the priest/bishop must refuse them.

 

[benedictgal]

The document talks about formal cooperation with abortion. Perhaps it would clear things up for the OP if you could briefly discuss formal cooperation v. material cooperation.

The document states that the bishop and/or pastor are to inform the pro-choice politician that they should not be receiving communion. But if they are told not to receive communion but go ahead and do so anyways, I have yet to see anything that says the priest/bishop must refuse them.

I do not know if you read the document through the link I posted. Here is the section that, I believe, addresses the point you raised:

. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

Regarding the person who is pro-choice, the statement clearly indicates, as I read it, that:

N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.

Here, the former Cardinal Ratzinger is being specific. If you are pro-choice and hold to that view, naturally, you are inclined to vote for like-minded candidates (meaning, that they would be pro-choice).

 

[EasterJoy]

The document states that the bishop and/or pastor are to inform the pro-choice politician that they should not be receiving communion. But if they are told not to receive communion but go ahead and do so anyways, I have yet to see anything that says the priest/bishop must refuse them.

I don’t think they’re going go that far, for lots of reasons. I realize the documents give that impression, but I think that presumes the option is prudently available. The Holy See isn’t going to take a bishop out on the carpet when he publicly corrects, tells the person not to receive, and then publicly says the person is abusing the Sacrament when the person elects to receive, anyway. If the person were brash enough to approach the bishop directly, that might be one thing. Asking every priest, deacon, and EMHC to recognize who’s on the “wanted list” is something else altogether.

In a world with 1 billion Catholics, the bishops have no way to make the priests recognize everybody on the “refused” list, not to mention the EMsHC. More importantly, it invites those who defy Church teaching self-righteously to approach Holy Communion with the express purpose of gaining sympathy by being refused or gaining a claim on tacit approval when they are not refused. Let us not even get into the fuel it would put on the fire when it is a priest who defies Church teaching. That doesn’t even count the damage when those not guilty of public defiance are mistakenly refused.

It encourages the use of Holy Communion as a political tool. Take the improper use of the homily that sometimes already drags the Mass in that direction when there are political agendas, and multiply. I know there are bishops that feel they can go in that direction prudently, and maybe they can in their dioceses, but there are places where the very idea of trying to implement something like that would give a wise bishop plenty of reason to pause. There are other ways to make the correction that are less injurious to the Body.

It is open to the Church to formally ex-communicate. Trying to implement ex-communications on the ground, particularly when none has been formally issued by the Holy See–it’s a nightmare.

 

[Lutheranteach]

IF all the American Catholics who could be excommunicated were excommunicated, I am guessing at 65% if not more would receive that punishment. It’s one of the things I don’t get. Decrees are issued and everyone knows full well they are going to be ignored by the majority of American Catholics, so what is the point other than to pacify a fringe of the faithful? I know hundreds of Catholics, but by the definitions I see here, I know only…maybe, 3 good ones. Have the people lost touch with the faith or has the faith lost touch with the people?