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

[Lapey]

Well Pelosi actually had a meeting with the Pope himself, and came out of that meeting still presenting for Communion. We don’t know what was said between them, but she was definitely not banned from presenting for Communion. She probably most likely is of the position that she represents all women, not just Catholic ones. In a pluralistic society, the politicians voted in to represent a demographic do just that.

The way I understand the conversation was a little different. You make it sound like she won the Holy Father over to her side. The way I understand it is she was told to change her public view or not present herself, as with everything she knows best and continues to be allowed to cause public scandal by receiving.

On your last thought, who represents the unborn children who could become Catholic, for that matter let’s just keep it simple, they could become born children? They are living children who have not been born yet, does that mean they have no rights??? Is the mother’s selfish choice to make her life a little simpler worth more than the life inside of her womb?

This is crazy that we even have to have this conversation amongst Catholics, please look at your Church for truth, not society!

The politicians who publically support anything but what the Church teaches on these issues should be refused if they do not change their views and support life. End of story…please refer to this past weekend’s 1st reading from Wisdom, 2:12

“Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us;
he sets himself against our doings,
reproaches us for transgressions of the law
and charges us with violations of our training.”

I’m sure some will find my words obnoxious!

 

[Rence]

Okay, let me get this straight, when, and at what point is it ok to kill the child???

It’s not. And you’ll get it straight if you continue reading down the thread

 

[Lapey]

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.

Abortion = Pro death and leftist view

Anti abortion and pro-life = Center, not right of center.

The Church is the center, period. Abortion is intrinsically evil; it is always wrong. That is the ceter view of the Church. To be pro abortion is leftist, to go beyond Church teachings to battle abortion is right; i.e. burn down a clinic, terror, murder as in Dr. Tiller.

 

[Rence]

The way I understand the conversation was a little different. You make it sound like she won the Holy Father over to her side. The way I understand it is she was told to change her public view or not present herself, as with everything she knows best and continues to be allowed to cause public scandal by receiving.

The way I understand it, no one knows what was said besides the Pope and Pelosi. Were did you get what was said?

As to the rest of your post, it’s getting pretty contentious and emotional, so we’ll try that again later, no offense.

 

[Lapey]

No offense, but I’ll go with what real live priests (that are involved in daily life rather than passer by’s online) say to me. I mean, CAF is a GREAT resource and I’ve learned a lot here. But real live priests trump what I read online…

I would hesitate on listening to any priest who tells you anything contrary to the Church’s teachings in Her documents. In this case your priest is wrong, Humana Vitea…read it.

In formation we had priests instructors, professors with much education make statements like being in favor of ordaining women. Should we listen to this priest too? Remember, all of the sacred ministers, bishops, priests, and deacons are men with opinions. It is when their opinions come out and contradict teachings that it is called heterodox. Your views here in this conversation are a direct result of this. Go to the source that is not your priest in this case.

What will you do if the next pastor you get preaches truth and it is opposite what your current pastor preaches? This happens, that’s why we are called mere men.

 

[Contarini]

While I agree there are two factions, Bismarck, I think that “liberal” and “conservative” are terms which pertain to politics and economics.

That doesn’t make sense. The Church is a political community–that is, it is an ordered body of people with rules that govern its common life. And like any such community, it contains “liberals”–those who favor broad boundaries and more openness to change/development–and “conservatives”–those who favor narrower boundaries and stricter adherence to tradition. It is actually far more meaningful to use the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in the context of the Catholic Church than in the context of American politics.

The proper terms in the RCC should be “orthodox” and “heterodox.”

That doesn’t make sense. Those terms imply a judgment. They aren’t neutral. Liberal and conservative, while relative, are not subjective. That is to say, one can agree in most cases (at least with regard to Catholicism–it’s harder to do this in secular American politics) which of two positions is more liberal or more conservative. These terms don’t simply equate to “orthodox” and “heterodox.” It is possible to be relatively liberal without being heterodox. It is also possible, in some cases, to be heterodox through being too conservative (for instance, if someone were to say that all who die without being in full visible communion with Rome certainly go to hell). And most importantly, Catholics of apparent intelligence and sincerity disagree with each other on where the boundaries of orthodoxy are.

That is not to say that orthodoxy and heterodoxy are meaningful terms, or that they are whatever someone says they are. I’m simply saying that they are terms that only make sense at the conclusion of a theological argument.

Edwin

 

[1AugustSon7]

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).

I think a lot of this has to do with conscience formation, which is a difficult subject: we are indeed bound to follow our consciences, and it can be a sin to act against conscience even if the act itself wouldn’t ordinarily be a sin; e.g., for a person who thinks eating meats sacrificed to idols is idolatry or a participation in idolatrous worship, then his conscience effectively forbids him from doing it, because for him it would constitute a betrayal of Christ; indeed, it would be a sin for him to eat: not so for him whose conscience has been formed to look upon idols as nothing. Now I am by no means offering anything like a strict analogy between this example and abortion, but only trying to recall the fact that moral issues can be more complex than what might at first meet the eye. Now we know that the Commandment that forbids killing also includes a strict prohibition against any and all abortion; however, the reason behind the commandment may not be so plain to many. In this sound knowledge that leads to true understanding would certainly help; notwithstanding, my erring reason or want of knowledge does not give me a right, as it were, to sin: ultimately I must have faith that the Divine Reason has issued the Commandment, and recall that all God’s works toward us is for our sakes, for our good and therefore - whatever the reason might ultimately be - I should keep the Commandment in trust and faith, being sure of its goodness; I should take care, however, not to be rash and presume the reason for the prohibition, lest I mistake the true or ultimate reason and only perhaps compound the problem and spread confusion.

As for communicants who present themselves, this is for the priests - the Church authority, ultimately - to decide. We do have a positive obligation to know our religion and to present ourselves for communion with a clean conscience, otherwise we really do eat and drink condemnation upon ourselves: the Church is not in the business, as it were, of prying into people’s lives or watching her children like hawks; if we start prohibiting people from communion because of this sin, then why not start scrupulously looking into any variety of mortal sins? Do we know of anytime in history when the Church did anything remotely like this? For instance, what program would you offer to prevent those who might practice onanism from being admitted to communion? As such sins are done in secret, we cannot but leave it to the communicant to judge or examine his own conscience.

I think a general increase of knowledge on this issue would go a long way to helping people understand the Church’s prohibition of it, and perhaps that’s what we should concentrate on doing, balancing justice for the unborn with a measure of mercy for the erring or the ignorant.

 

[Lapey]

The way I understand it, no one knows what was said besides the Pope and Pelosi. Were did you get what was said?

As to the rest of your post, it’s getting pretty contentious and emotional, so we’ll try that again later, no offense.

According to what I’ve seen on EWTN it did not go NP’s way, why would it??? PB16 is the person in charge of the deposit of truth, how does NP hold to anything that is truth?

I’m sorry if you feel I am too emotional, it is truly sad to see Catholic make excuses for their beliefs. To think that separating yourself from the sin like you do excludes you from that sin. That is a naive thought. As far as being contentious, I guess that is what it is.

It is one thing to hold your views, it is totally different to act on them; by sharing your views here in public and arguing on behalf of untruth in this matter, you most definitely own your wrongs.

I once was in the same boat as you, praise God for showing me the way. I pray you see your error in thinking as well.

Agin, each of these politicians who publically support abortion rights should be refused and publically excommunicatede if they do not come into the truth. This is what is tearing the Church apart, nothing matters anymore. Sad, just sad.

 

[Rence]

According to what I’ve seen on EWTN it did not go NP’s way, why would it??? PB16 is the person in charge of the deposit of truth, how does NP hold to anything that is truth?

I’m sorry if you feel I am too emotional, it is truly sad to see Catholic make excuses for their beliefs. To think that separating yourself from the sin like you do excludes you from that sin. That is a naive thought. As far as being contentious, I guess that is what it is.

It is one thing to hold your views, it is totally different to act on them; by sharing your views here in public and arguing on behalf of untruth in this matter, you most definitely own your wrongs.

I once was in the same boat as you, praise God for showing me the way. I pray you see your error in thinking as well.

Agin, each of these politicians who publically support abortion rights should be refused and publically excommunicatede if they do not come into the truth. This is what is tearing the Church apart, nothing matters anymore. Sad, just sad.

If you weren’t so emotional charged at the moment, you would know that I’m not sharing my views on an untruth. I don’t think I’ve posted anything on this thread that is an untruth.

 

[Lapey]

That doesn’t make sense. The Church is a political community–that is, it is an ordered body of people with rules that govern its common life. And like any such community, it contains “liberals”–those who favor broad boundaries and more openness to change/development–and “conservatives”–those who favor narrower boundaries and stricter adherence to tradition. It is actually far more meaningful to use the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in the context of the Catholic Church than in the context of American politics.

That doesn’t make sense. Those terms imply a judgment. They aren’t neutral. Liberal and conservative, while relative, are not subjective. That is to say, one can agree in most cases (at least with regard to Catholicism–it’s harder to do this in secular American politics) which of two positions is more liberal or more conservative. These terms don’t simply equate to “orthodox” and “heterodox.” It is possible to be relatively liberal without being heterodox. It is also possible, in some cases, to be heterodox through being too conservative (for instance, if someone were to say that all who die without being in full visible communion with Rome certainly go to hell). And most importantly, Catholics of apparent intelligence and sincerity disagree with each other on where the boundaries of orthodoxy are.

That is not to say that orthodoxy and heterodoxy are meaningful terms, or that they are whatever someone says they are. I’m simply saying that they are terms that only make sense at the conclusion of a theological argument.

Edwin

Well said Edwin. We tend to throw these words around too much, this in itself helps to “muddy the waters” so to speak. The words heresy and heterodoxy or orthodoxy really doesn’t come in here. This is just simply not understanding what the Church stands for, and bad formation of our consciences.

I like it kept simple, abortion is wrong in all cases and to support it in any way is a liberal view and wrong. To shut down an abortion clinic by all means necessary is far right conservative and equally wrong. The Church says abortion is intrinsically evil; this is the center view.

 

[Lapey]

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.

Here is a good start. There are no acceptible times to allow a choice of death, abortion is intrinsically evil. You as a Catholic do not have a moral right to say or act otherwise. You may do it as you have here, but that does not mean it’s okay to do so.

Well Pelosi actually had a meeting with the Pope himself, and came out of that meeting still presenting for Communion. We don’t know what was said between them, but she was definitely not banned from presenting for Communion. She probably most likely is of the position that she represents all women, not just Catholic ones. In a pluralistic society, the politicians voted in to represent a demographic do just that.

What does the term “pluralistic society” mean where it comes to the formation of one’s conscience? Doesn’t fit does it. Why do you think PB16 would not berate and scold NP?

The contradiction only exists in your mind because you don’t agree with me, and that’s okay because you don’t have to. I have no intention of changing your mind or influencing you or anyone else either way. My opininon does not make me participate (I never took part in one abortion), encourage (I’ve never counseled anyone to have one, in fact, I counsel people not to have one), aid (won’t help pay for one, won’t provide transportation, won’t refer, etc.) or having anything to do with abortion.

Sitting on th eside lines and saying that we live in a pluralistic society and a woman should retain the right to kill her child is taking part in it, there are no side lines in this fight.

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.

Doing nothing to bring abortion completly to an end in the entire world is participating in continuing the scourge of abortion.

Yes, I believe the Church is very clear on its teaching that all direct abortion is wrong is a sin of grave matter and that Catholics must obey this teaching.

Why do you have to add in that little word “direct”? Does it feel better when yoou say it like that?

If you weren’t so emotional charged at the moment, you would know that I’m not sharing my views on an untruth. I don’t think I’ve posted anything on this thread that is an untruth.

If all would be more emotionally charged in this fight against abortion it would be close to being defeated!

 

[Rence]

Here is a good start. There are no acceptible times to allow a choice of death, abortion is intrinsically evil. You as a Catholic do not have a moral right to say or act otherwise. You may do it as you have here, but that does not mean it’s okay to do so.

People, men and women, should always retain the right make decisions regarding their own healthcare interventions. Though they should always choose the right decisions, the choice should be their own.

What does the term “pluralistic society” mean where it comes to the formation of one’s conscience? Doesn’t fit does it. Why do you think PB16 would not berate and scold NP?

I don’t believe PB16 berated her because I hold him to a higher standard. Though a good scolding I’m sure she had.

Sitting on th eside lines and saying that we live in a pluralistic society and a woman should retain the right to kill her child is taking part in it, there are no side lines in this fight.

I am of the belief that trying to take away a person’s right to guide and direct their own healthcare decisions is not the way to reduce abortions. I am of the belief that abortion will continue as long as people want to have them. We have to change their minds to make the right choice, not try to force their hand. The more one tries to force another’s hand, the more they will find the need to fight back instead of allow the other person to help them.

Doing nothing to bring abortion completly to an end in the entire world is participating in continuing the scourge of abortion.

You can’t save the world and will waste your time trying. The best we can do is make a difference in our little part of it. If everyone did that, we’d accomplish more rather than waste time and effort on trying to change the world.

Why do you have to add in that little word “direct”? Does it feel better when yoou say it like that?

I don’t understand what you mean.

If all would be more emotionally charged in this fight against abortion it would be close to being defeated!

I highly doubt that.

 

[Lapey]

People, men and women, should always retain the right make decisions regarding their own healthcare interventions. Though they should always choose the right decisions, the choice should be their own.

You are correct here…but we should NEVER give them a reason to think there are other options outside of life. This is where you and the Church differ.

I don’t believe PB16 berated her because I hold him to a higher standard. Though a good scolding I’m sure she had.

Don’t see much of a difference, she deserves both.

I am of the belief that trying to take away a person’s right to guide and direct their own healthcare decisions is not the way to reduce abortions. I am of the belief that abortion will continue as long as people want to have them. We have to change their minds to make the right choice, not try to force their hand. The more one tries to force another’s hand, the more they will find the need to fight back instead of allow the other person to help them.

There is no choice but life. Just by saying this is “healthcare” does that make it easier? Abortion is not healthcare, it is murder. Also, I think the more we, Catholics especially, excuse actions of others, it will continue. It is past time to call evil what it is, evil.

You can’t save the world and will waste your time trying. The best we can do is make a difference in our little part of it. If everyone did that, we’d accomplish more rather than waste time and effort on trying to change the world.

I can and will save, through the Grace of God, what little bit I can! The best we can do is speak the truth in these matters, life is sacred. Now go and protect that unborn child as much as you would protect the right of the mother to kill it. Your last statement is very telling, so if we’d all do as you and so many Catholics do, we would save the mother’s right to kell her child. I will continue to speak in favor of the child, you can continue to argue for the mother.

I don’t understand what you mean.

Really? You added the word “direct” in front of abortion, so you think that it is okay to hold and share your views because you don’t directly partake. This is bad understanding of moral theology. It’s like if I donate to planned parenthood and designate the money go to only cancer screening, am I free of the sin of abortion? No way, my donation will open up other money to use for abortion. This is why planned parenthood funding by the government should be ended. It is also why those who vote publically to keep it should be excluded from Holy Communion until they change their views publically, Catholics I men.

I highly doubt that.

 

[SirIsaccnewton]

interesting.

 

[Lapey]

interesting.

Thanks…I think we needed that comic relief!!!

 

[Rence]

Really? You added the word “direct” in front of abortion, so you think that it is okay to hold and share your views because you don’t directly partake. This is bad understanding of moral theology.

Again, I think you’re getting so emotional over this topic that you’re misunderstanding things that are being written. It’s good to be passionate, and fighting abortion is your passion, which is wonderful. But when you get so emotional that you look for things to pick at, it defeats your purpose. I took “direct abortion” straight out of the Catechism, and “direct” is in reference to the abortion (as opposed to the removal of a damaged fallopian tube), not my actions or inactions:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

And this is what the Church says about culpability with regards to abortion:

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.

No one can accuse me of formally cooperating with an abortion without being untruthful.

It’s like if I donate to planned parenthood and designate the money go to only cancer screening, am I free of the sin of abortion? No way, my donation will open up other money to use for abortion.

This is your opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion, but this is not Church teaching. By your logic, we would be ‘sinning’ if we donated to the Komen foundation, or bought Pepsi products, or shopped at Walmart. Sorry, but that’s not a teaching from the Church.

 

[Lapey]

Again, I think you’re getting so emotional over this topic that you’re misunderstanding things that are being written. It’s good to be passionate, and fighting abortion is your passion, which is wonderful. But when you get so emotional that you look for things to pick at, it defeats your purpose. I took “direct abortion” straight out of the Catechism, and “direct” is in reference to the abortion (as opposed to the removal of a damaged fallopian tube), not my actions or inactions:

And this is what the Church says about culpability with regards to abortion:

No one can accuse me of formally cooperating with an abortion without being untruthful.

This is your opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion, but this is not Church teaching. By your logic, we would be ‘sinning’ if we donated to the Komen foundation, or bought Pepsi products, or shopped at Walmart. Sorry, but that’s not a teaching from the Church.Yes, this is Church teaching,

Why do you keep calling me emotional, because I disagree and you are able to think straight and I cannot? I’m far from emotional, but I will speak against anyone, especially a Catholic who is defending a woman’s right to choose death. That is not emotion my friend and sister, this is what Jesus and His Church call us to do, defend those who cannot defend themself.

I’ll concede the direct indirect abortion terms you site, however the context in which our conversation was did not include the ectopic pregnancy cure, removal of the tube with the fetus, which obviously will end the pregnancy. I know this is not what I was discussing, and neither were you from what I saw. But I’ll concede.

Sorry, but you are wrong here. Indirect participation in abortion is in fact the issue we awere discussing. There are layers to the guilt from direct to less and less attached to the sin, but it is none the less wrong to participate, I’ll give you the culpability argument. As we are further away from the act we are less culpable, but not innocent.

The points about you participating in abortion which I pointed out like others is this, if you take to the public forums, representing yourself as Catholic and espouse thoughts outside of Church teachings, you are defending the wrong. It is not an option to defend a mother’s right to choose death for her child. All abortion is wrong, this is Church teaching, intrinsically evil; if you want to quantify this by saying direct and indirect, be my guest.

My words did not include the type of procedure as this in the category of abortion; this is the law of “secondary affect”. The treatment is to the disease and the result will end the child’s life, but again it is not the desire. To make a distinction between “direct abortions” that is, abortion which is either an end or a means, and “indirect abortions”, where the loss of the fetus is then considered to be a “secondary effect.” This is not what we were discussing. But again, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

More to come shortly…

 

[Rence]

Why do you keep calling me emotional, because I disagree and you are able to think straight and I cannot? I’m far from emotional, but I will speak against anyone, especially a Catholic who is defending a woman’s right to choose death…
Sorry, but you are wrong here. Indirect participation in abortion is in fact the issue we awere discussing. There are layers to the guilt from direct to less and less attached to the sin, but it is none the less wrong to participate, I’ll give you the culpability argument. As we are further away from the act we are less culpable, but not innocent.

The points about you participating in abortion which I pointed out like others is this, if you take to the public forums, representing yourself as Catholic and espouse thoughts outside of Church teachings, you are defending the wrong. It is not an option to defend a mother’s right to choose death for her child. All abortion is wrong, this is Church teaching, intrinsically evil; if you want to quantify this by saying direct and indirect, be my guest.

Listen, no normal person in their right mind is in favor of abortion. But it’s obvious there is more than one way to fight against abortion. I favor the notion that abortions will decrease when women choose to not have them. You can beat a dead horse all you want trying to get it outlawed in any and all circumstances, and it’s your right to do so (lobby away) but for me, I would rather work on changing people’s minds rather than trying to force their hand.

I have already talked to two priests in real life about this and I trust their counsel.

 

[Lapey]

Listen, no normal person in their right mind is in favor of abortion. But it’s obvious there is more than one way to fight against abortion. I favor the notion that abortions will decrease when women choose to not have them. You can beat a dead horse all you want trying to get it outlawed in any and all circumstances, and it’s your right to do so (lobby away) but for me, I would rather work on changing people’s minds rather than trying to force their hand.

I have already talked to two priests in real life about this and I trust their counsel.

You are missing the entire point…it’s already illegal! As a Catholic you are bound to defend life. Do you really think that I and people who fight for the life movment don’t fight to change hearts??? Wow, you really look down on me dont you. All avenues must be worked, minds and hearts. we do not have a choice. One day it will be outlawed and there will be people helping women get to illegal clinics just like in teh past out of “safety concerns”.Back to th eorriginal, there must be a consequece to public support of abortion, bishops need to order all to with hold communion from people who publically support this evil. New york is giving contraceptives, morning after pills, and other things to kids as young as 14. How far will this society fall before God says, “there are none worth saving…”?