Could a priest deny communion to someone who is openly pro choice?

[Faithdancer]

There is two factions within the Catholic church. The liberals version which is pro choice and for gay marriage. The other the conservative faction that opposes abortion and is against gay marriage. I pray for a monolithic church once again and due leadership from the high rank with the RCC.

While I agree there are two factions, Bismarck, I think that “liberal” and “conservative” are terms which pertain to politics and economics. The proper terms in the RCC should be “orthodox” and “heterodox.” Supporting abortion and gay “marriage” is not only heterodox but when the support is active and in obstinate opposition to the teachings of the Magisterium, it rises (or rather descends) to the level of heresy: ewtn.com/expert/answer/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

If someone in a state of mortal sin due to heresy receives communion, he or she is obviously compounding sin, i.e. committing an additional sin. (Moral Theology 101).

 

[Bismarck]

While I agree there are two factions, Bismarck, I think that “liberal” and “conservative” are terms which pertain to politics and economics. The proper terms in the RCC should be “orthodox” and “heterodox.” Supporting abortion and gay “marriage” is not only heterodox but when the support is active and in obstinate opposition to the teachings of the Magisterium, it rises (or rather descends) to the level of heresy: ewtn.com/expert/answer/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

If someone in a state of mortal sin due to heresy receives communion, he or she is obviously compounding sin, i.e. committing an additional sin. (Moral Theology 101).

Whatever one is most comfortable in terms to describe the divisions within the RCC, is fine with me.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Whatever one is most comfortable in terms to describe the divisions within the RCC, is fine with me.

What exactly do you mean by “the divisions within the RCC?” Do you mean that there are several legitimate versions of Catholic moral theology? Or do you mean that many Catholics merely create their own doctrine and proclaim their “right” to do so (that their personal theology is co-equal or even superior to the genuine Deposit of Faith)? Or, do you mean that some Catholics are inclined to support emotionally a secular, populist view of “morality” as embracing of SS “marriage” or “unions,” election support of abortion-on-demand, etc., while understanding that such emotional attachment cannot translate to active support in any way, for any of these core moral issues on sexuality, marriage, and family?

…because those are very different phenomena.

 

[Faithdancer]

What exactly do you mean by “the divisions within the RCC?” Do you mean that there are several legitimate versions of Catholic moral theology? Or do you mean that many Catholics merely create their own doctrine and proclaim their “right” to do so (that their personal theology is co-equal or even superior to the genuine Deposit of Faith)? Or, do you mean that some Catholics are inclined to support emotionally a secular, populist view of “morality” as embracing of SS “marriage” or “unions,” election support of abortion-on-demand, etc., while understanding that such emotional attachment cannot translate to active support in any way, for any of these core moral issues on sexuality, marriage, and family?

…because those are very different phenomena.

I can’t speak for Bismarck, but I took his response just prior to your post as agreement about the heterodoxy/orthodoxy crisis, and I would certainly agree that supporting “emotionally a secular, populist view of “morality” as embracing of SS “marriage” or “unions,” election support of abortion-on-demand, etc., while understanding that such emotional attachment cannot translate to active support in any way, for any of these core moral issues on sexuality, marriage, and family” is delusional double-think, and not obedient in intellect and will to the teachings of our Magisterium at all.

btw your sentence which I just quoted is quite masterfully composed- kudos!

 

[markeverett49]

But I truly do believe that in certain circumstances it’s a choice that a woman should continue to be able to make (such as when her health is at risk, or even taking emergency contraception at the ER after a rape), and I don’t believe autonomy and the freedom to make decisions that direct her healthcare should ever by trumped by another person’s religious beliefs.

The woman is not the only party concerned:you’re conveniently forgetting the unborn child. And since the purpose of this “healthcare” choice is to end the child’s life, I think the interest of the child is more pressing.

 

[Faithdancer]

The woman is not the only party concerned:you’re conveniently forgetting the unborn child. And since the purpose of this “healthcare” choice is to end the child’s life, I think the interest of the child is more pressing.

Amen. A child conceived from rape, if brought to term and nurtured and educated properly, may grow up to be a healthy, happy, productive member of society, perhaps even a devout Roman Catholic if raised in the faith, regardless of the heinous manner in which he or she was conceived. This outcome would be a textbook example of God’s unlimited power to bring forth good, from evil.

 

[rfournier103]

As stated in 1 Corinthians 11, we must examine ourselves before partaking in Holy Communion.

The way I see it… the priest does not want to ‘cheapen’ Holy Communion by letting ‘unworthy’ persons partake. More importantly: the priest doesn’t want to allow this person to put their soul in GRAVE DANGER.

For example: there’s a particular Senator who instists on flouting their status as a Roman Catholic but NEVER holds to the principles of the Church… that Senator will be in for a rude awakening when they find the joke is on them; as they will have eaten and drank judgement upon themselves. They will have to answer for the Body and Blood of Christ. I would NOT want to be him/her!

I am very new to Apologetics, but I think EVERY Catholic should know and understand 1 Corinthians chapter 11. Pretty scary, when you think about it… It pays to do the right thing!

 

[markeverett49]

While serving a pastoral year as a seminarian, I withheld Communion from a guy because I could tell he wasn’t Catholic and his presence in the Communion line was simply the result of ‘going with the flow.’ At least, that’s what I thought. When he approached me, I whispered, “Are you Catholic?” He shook his head. I smiled and nodded in the direction he should move and said, “You can just go back to your seat.” The priest distributing Communion next to me didn’t notice anything.

I told him about it later. He said what I did was okay but that he would not have done it.
I think most priests never seriously consider withholding Communion from anyone. The strong presumption in favor of the communicant makes sense.

However, some people are notorious and make a public spectacle of their opposition to Church teaching on life and death issues, such as abortion. In those cases, I think the pastor owes it to the REST of his flock withhold PUBLIC Communion from the notorious.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I can’t speak for Bismarck, but I took his response just prior to your post as agreement about the heterodoxy/orthodoxy crisis,

Thanks, Faith. I kind of realized that after I wrote it. The issue I have is not with him but with the phrase “divisions within the RCC.” I object to it not merely for technical reasons, but because many modernist Catholics use that concept (an invented concept) as an affirmation that supposedly it’s “okay” to invent Catholic theology, and that there are genuinely-approved dvisions within Catholicism, which – while informal – are legitimate within themselves. (like High-Anglican vs. Low-Anglican; Southern Baptist vs. Black Baptist, etc.).

NOT.

and I would certainly agree that supporting “emotionally a secular, populist view of “morality” as embracing of SS “marriage” or “unions,” election support of abortion-on-demand, etc., while understanding that such emotional attachment cannot translate to active support in any way, for any of these core moral issues on sexuality, marriage, and family” is delusional double-think, and not obedient in intellect and will to the teachings of our Magisterium at all.

True, although even there my objection is not to others not being obedient in intellect, but rather subverting others to a non-doctrinal “Catholicism” on a Catholic discussion forum – not to mention where else they’re doing so IRL. They have zero authority to do that.

btw your sentence which I just quoted is quite masterfully composed- kudos!

I would say it’s too long.

 

[Faithdancer]

While serving a pastoral year as a seminarian, I withheld Communion from a guy because I could tell he wasn’t Catholic and his presence in the Communion line was simply the result of ‘going with the flow.’ At least, that’s what I thought. When he approached me, I whispered, “Are you Catholic?” He shook his head. I smiled and nodded in the direction he should move and said, “You can just go back to your seat.” The priest distributing Communion next to me didn’t notice anything.

I told him about it later. He said what I did was okay but that he would not have done it.
I think most priests never seriously consider withholding Communion from anyone. The strong presumption in favor of the communicant makes sense.

However, some people are notorious and make a public spectacle of their opposition to Church teaching on life and death issues, such as abortion. In those cases, I think the pastor owes it to the REST of his flock withhold PUBLIC Communion from the notorious.

You are too kind in using the term “notorious,” Mark. But you are ever the gentleman! I would happily substitute “heretic” for “notorious” because to make a “public spectacle of their opposition to Church teaching on life and death issues, such as abortion” easily meets the “obstinacy” requirement contained within the definition of heresy.

 

[Dominique1234]

Really? It’s none of anyone’s business. It’s between Caroline & God.

Correct. But Cardinal Dolan should have called her out, SPECIFICALLY the fact that it is an INTRINSIC EVIL to be for abortions and any Catholic who is pro choice is Anathema.

Someone who publicly proclaims a certain way of thinking (pro choice) and is intrinsically evil is anathema. This person must make a public statement saying they are WRONG and that the Catholic church is RIGHT before going back to communion. This is how it’s supposed to be done.

Anyone who opposes the moral teachings of the Church are anathema. To vote for someone who believes abortions are okay are not living a Faithful Catholic life and are anathema.

 

[Faithdancer]

subverting others to a non-doctrinal “Catholicism” on a Catholic discussion forum –

Oh, say it ain’t so!!!

(and the real harm that is done thereby, is to our impressionable unbeliever and other non-Catholic guests, who may take this non-doctrinal “Catholicism” as somehow valid or otherwise representative of anything more than a tiny fringe.)

 

[markeverett49]

You are too kind in using the term “notorious,” Mark. But you are ever the gentleman! I would happily substitute “heretic” for “notorious” because to make a “public spectacle of their opposition to Church teaching on life and death issues, such as abortion” easily meets the “obstinacy” requirement contained within the definition of heresy.

I think “heretic” is overused. As my seminary rector once said to end a mutual ‘heretic’ throw-down, “Neither of you know enough theology to commit heresy.”

There’s a lesson in that. Yes, a person CAN be a heretic without being a theologian. However, it ain’t as easy as saying something at odds with the Church. (All heresy is error but not all error is heresy.) Many people misunderstand Church teachings and what they rail against is something the Church doesn’t actually hold. That’s not heresy, it’s just error or confusion. Others may dislike the REASON they think the Church gives for something and protest that (-how many times have we heard it said that the Church is “anti-sex” because ‘those old celibates’ don’t want anyone else having any fun? Well, if THAT were the reason for the Church’s teachings on, say, contraception, it would be right to oppose them. But that’s NOT the reason and someone who insists that sex is “a good thing” is not in opposition to the Church at all.)

 

[Faithdancer]

I think “heretic” is overused. As my seminary rector once said to end a mutual ‘heretic’ throw-down, “Neither of you know enough theology to commit heresy.”

There’s a lesson in that. Yes, a person CAN be a heretic without being a theologian. However, it ain’t as easy as saying something at odds with the Church. (All heresy is error but not all error is heresy.) Many people misunderstand Church teachings and what they rail against is something the Church doesn’t actually hold. That’s not heresy, it’s just error or confusion. Others may dislike the REASON they think the Church gives for something and protest that (-how many times have we heard it said that the Church is “anti-sex” because ‘those old celibates’ don’t want anyone else having any fun? Well, if THAT were the reason for the Church’s teachings on, say, contraception, it would be right to oppose them. But that’s NOT the reason and someone who insists that sex is “a good thing” is not in opposition to the Church at all.)

Granted that misinterpretation of Church teachings on a moral subject may not be initially deliberate, and may provide the defense of “invincible ignorance.” But once someone has been repeatedly informed what the correct doctrine is, at what point is the excuse of even vincible ignorance- which may be partially mitigating- no longer viable, and obstinacy is the only explanation for holding to the contradiction of doctrine?

 

[Rence]

Is it charitable to tell me what I believe? Your priest is correct that you can hold these views and still receive, but, once you make your views public, you are participating, encouraging, aiding, having something to do with abortion and influencing others, whether you choose to believe it or not. Murder, in any form, from onanism to euthanasia, is a sin against the grace of God.

Participating is taking a part of, being involved with. Which I’m not. Encouraging is counseling people to do it, which I don’t. I encourage people to NOT do it. Therefore I don’t encourage. Aiding is helping to obtain, which I never have. It’s okay that you don’t share my beliefs. However, saying that I participate, encourage, and aid just by voicing my opinion is false. Sorry about that.

 

[JM3]

Participating is taking a part of, being involved with. Which I’m not. Encouraging is counseling people to do it, which I don’t. I encourage people to NOT do it. Therefore I don’t encourage. Aiding is helping to obtain, which I never have. It’s okay that you don’t share my beliefs. However, saying that I participate, encourage, and aid just by voicing my opinion is false. Sorry about that.

Case in point,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9787039&postcount=1

I really cannot overstate the amount of influence that this website and its members have on lives.

Everything you say effects others.

CCC 1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

 

[benjammin]

If a priest knows that someone is actively pro-choice, I think they can refuse the person Communion. But the three priests I have shared my views with told me that I am still fit for Communion because I don’t act on my belief. I don’t picket, I don’t lobby, I don’t help or participate or even encourage abortion. I will share my opinion if asked, but I will reiterate Church teaching. But I truly do believe that in certain circumstances it’s a choice that a woman should continue to be able to make (such as when her health is at risk, or even taking emergency contraception at the ER after a rape), and I don’t believe autonomy and the freedom to make decisions that direct her healthcare should ever by trumped by another person’s religious beliefs. My priests have told me I can still have Communion with these views, and because I don’t participate/encourage/aid or have anything to do with abortion aside from my own personal beliefs and values.

Okay not to offend you, but your priests need a little lesson in orthodoxy. Isn’t anyone who’s pro choice unable to go to communion. If we went by your logic, a person who engages in gay sex could go to communion as long as it was kept secret and they didn’t let their views be known, or if a person was a racist, but was a secret racist, or any other number of reasons. Even now by saying this on CAF your may be leading people to think it is okay to be pro choice, so you are going against your priest’s wishes. Hopefully though you will change your thinking, and I appreciate your civility.

 

[dailey]

Okay not to offend you, but your priests need a little lesson in orthodoxy. Isn’t anyone who’s pro choice unable to go to communion. If we went by your logic, a person who engages in gay sex could go to communion as long as it was kept secret and they didn’t let their views be known, or if a person was a racist, but was a secret racist, or any other number of reasons. Even now by saying this on CAF your may be leading people to think it is okay to be pro choice, so you are going against your priest’s wishes. Hopefully though you will change your thinking, and I appreciate your civility.

Yep, I was thinking the same thing.

This reminds me of when Jesus says that if a man looks at a women with lust, he is still sinning, (regardless if he acted on it or not). What is in your heart can damn you just as well.

The fact that the poster is not against abortion (and catholic) just seems so, so wrong to me…

 

[Julia_Mae]

Originally Posted by Rence

No, this isn’t Rence’s logic at all. The post you responded to clearly says: I don’t act on my belief… which is entirely different from a gay person having sex. That would be acting.

, or if a person was a racist, but was a secret racist,

Racists get to receive the Eucharist. Even openly racist persons who tout their beliefs.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Y
The fact that the poster is not against abortion (and catholic) just seems so, so wrong to me…

Again, this is not what Rence said. Or what I say. Yes, we are “against abortion.” Which is different than being pro-choice. Now, being pro-choice doesn’t necessarily mean thinking anyone should be able to walk into a clinic any time and demand an abortion. It actually means we were fine on the pre-Roe v Wade days, when there were exceptions for obtaining abortions in certain extreme cases as determined by a woman and her doctor.