Are Pro-Choice Catholics Allowed Communion?

[EasterJoy]

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?

As Benedictgal pointed out: “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.”

Ex-communication isn’t a punishment, but rather is a recognition of a person’s having a publicly obvious and objective situation of sin that betrays an unworthiness to receive Holy Communion.

I hope that brings your numbers down a little.

Most of the time, the person burdened with making that objective judgment is the communicant.

 

[benedictgal]

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?

The Church does not move with the winds of fashion. As the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger preached so eloquently at the Mass to open the conclave that elected him pope:

How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves * thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.

We hold Communion sacred because we are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. To receive Him unworthily is a manifest, grave sin. As St. Paul told the Corinthians:

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

I have a friend of mine who is a state representative. He sends his kids to Catholic school and goes to Mass every Sunday. But, he is pro-choice. He still presents himself for Holy Communion. Unfortunately, our bishop has done nothing. In charity, I have tried to tell him, but, to no avail. He, in my opinion, falls under those who have been swayed by the dictatorship of relativism.

 

[MusicMan]

So, since my question has still gone unanswered, let me try another way.

I’m running for Senate, but I refuse to put an anti-abortion plank in my platform because I believe that making abortion illegal in the US would require such legislation that I believe it to be impossible. Can I still receive Communion? Don’t quote a document, answer the question.

 

[EasterJoy]

So, since my question has still gone unanswered, let me try another way.

I’m running for Senate, but I refuse to put an anti-abortion plank in my platform because I believe that making abortion illegal in the US would require such legislation that I believe it to be impossible. Can I still receive Communion? Don’t quote a document, answer the question.

It is not a grave sin, per se, for a politician to have a weak agenda or even to fail to introduce moral legislation when no prudent person could find evidence that the legislation would pass. So yes, strictly speaking, you could receive Holy Communion if you somehow managed to dodge the issue entirely.

Failing to put a pro-life plank in is not the same as gaining votes by putting a pro-choice plank in. The latter is gravely sinful, even if the politician cynically plans to neglect to take any action on the plank. Promoting a “pro-choice” plank as a positive reason for political support is itself an action that promotes abortion as a positive good. That is a grave sin.

 

[CatholicGuy22]

Yes but pro-choicers should really take a long look at themselves.

---

If the world hates you remember that it hated me first,no servant is greater than his master,if they persecuted me(Jesus) they will persecute you.

 

[thistle]

I know its not the case but let’s say, for arguments sake, that all candidates in both parties were equally pro-choice in their position. Does that mean that Catholics in America should not vote at all and if they voted are they committing a grave sin?

 

[Seatuck]

I know its not the case but let’s say, for arguments sake, that all candidates in both parties were equally pro-choice in their position. Does that mean that Catholics in America should not vote at all and if they voted are they committing a grave sin?

No you can vote the lesser of the two evils. You look for proportionate reasons as well.
Abortion trumps most other moral evils normally but there could hypothetically be a presidential candidate that is pro-life but seems to be intending to do other evils.
You wouldn’t vote for that candidate. But it actually has to be a real intrinsic evil. Capital punishment for instance isn’t an intrinsic evil .

vox-nova.com/2007/10/13/proportionate-reasons/

 

[ProVobis]

Capital punishment for instance isn’t an intrinsic evil .

Pope John Paul II taught against it.

 

[benedictgal]

Pope John Paul II taught against it.

Let’s remember what then-Cardinal Ratzinger said regarding the issue of Holy Communion:

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.

Thus, disagreeing with the Church on the death penalty does not make one ineligible to present himself for Holy Communion. The two intrinsic evils are abortion and euthanasia.

 

[ProVobis]

Is voting for a bill that’s against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of mother counted as pro-life?

 

[Canto]

Is voting for a bill that’s against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of mother counted as pro-life?

Some hold this view and consider it pro-life
The Church however opposes abortion full stop.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.

If a woman kills her baby it’s not murder
If a woman kills her rapist it is murder

 

[ProVobis]

Some hold this view and consider it pro-life

Now that I think about it, I guess it depends. If the status quo is abortion anytime you feel like it, at least you’re passing legislation that places some limitations.

OTOH, if the status quo is no abortion anytime, than lessening the restrictions would be considered pro-abortion or pro-choice.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Some hold this view and consider it pro-life
The Church however opposes abortion full stop.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.

If a woman kills her baby it’s not murder
If a woman kills her rapist it is murder

I agree with you completely that murder in these cases is still murder, evil, and should be illegal. But these are a small minority of cases. If a bill actually banned abortion in all cases other than these, it probably would be okay to vote for it, provided we only do so as a “step in the right direction,” never giving up on the goal of getting abortion banned in all cases.

 

[MusicMan]

Is voting for a bill that’s against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of mother counted as pro-life?

Abortion is currently illegal. Such a bill would restrict abortion. Thus, if a Catholic politician voted in favor of such a bill because it would restrict abortion there should be no problem with it. If, however, a Catholic politician were to vote for it because of what it allowed, versus what it restricted, then there might be a moral issue there.

 

[ProVobis]

If, however, a Catholic politician were to vote for it because of what it allowed, versus what it restricted, then there might be a moral issue there.

But there is also a moral issue if abortion is used as a political maneuver to include it as a part of another piece of legislation in an effort to kill or pass that bill.

If you read the history behind Roe vs Wade you’ll find that it was Catholics who made it an issue in New York before it was settled by the Supreme Court. Had they not brought it up it would no doubt still be upon the states to set abortion laws and restrictions, a far much better outcome than having it the law of the land.

 

[EasterJoy]

Is voting for a bill that’s against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of mother counted as pro-life?

Let’s not get into labels. Let’s just look at the moral issues at stake:

The child is not culpable in the case of rape and incest, and so is not liable to lose his or her life as a consequence.

It is permissible to perform an abortion to save a woman’s life under the same circumstances that a firefighter could choose to save one victim over another, when it is not reasonably possible to save both. The child’s life is not weighted less than the mother’s, but the doctor does not have to let nature take its course. The chances of successfully saving one or the other may be taken into account. Nevertheless, if there is a course of action to save the mother that might also save the child, that one is indicated. The greater chance of saving the mother does not give carte blanche to kill the child as a side effect.

Nevertheless, as noted, if the bill with these restrictions is placed next to having no restrictions on abortion at all, then half a cake is better than none. So a pro-life politician might complain that the bill is too narrow, but support it anyway, as better than nothing.

Also, consider that the reasonable effect of a law may also be taken into consideration. For instance, if a law outlawing abortion in a particular country did not lower the abortion rate at all, yet increased the maternal death rate due to illegal abortions, it would not be pro-abortion to look for changes in the overall law of the land that would have the intended effect. The new laws would still have to reflect the fact that abortion is intrinsically evil, but those who are held accountable, the way in which they are held accountable, or some other pressure in the decision-making process might have to be changed.

Let us say that research indicates that although the law punishes women who get abortions, it is not the women making the decisions, but rather other people forcing them to get them. The law would have the unintended effect of silencing the victims, because it would be the woman forced to have the abortion who would be punished by the law. In that case, the lawmakers would have to change the law, in favor of something that might work. That would be not only morally OK, but a moral necessity.