Head Of U.S Bishops’ Pro-Life Activity: No Communion For Pro-Abortion Politicians

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertlnorman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Supporting abortion is grave matter, if these politicians want receive the Eucharist they better reform their ways and confess contritely.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
The headline is misleading. He has no authority to take action in dioceses other than his own. The story correctly states that he has called on other bishops to take this action in their own dioceses.
 
I hate the overlap between religion and politics, but if we must go this route, I would hope that there should be no communion for politicians who hurt the poor, indigent, and aged through implementing legislation that restricts funding for programs that help those who are in need.
And no communion for politicians who favor lethal injection or other forms of lethal punishment for crimes.
 
As someone who favors social welfare programs and ending the death penalty in first world nations, it’s not the same.

This is an action that Bishops should have taken decades ago.
 
He did have the authority to ban the Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, as she was in his dioceses.

What few people know about, is that President Obama had a heated exchange between Sibelius and other feminists in his administration over the contraceptive mandate. He had promised Cardinal Dolan that there would be exemptions for the Church, just three weeks before.

Obama failed in giving in to the demands of Sebelius and her cronies and let them put the mandate into the ACA regulations.

It’s been hell since.

Jim
 
Of course, the difference is that when you talk about politicians who “hurt the poor,” in order for it to be a parallel in a pro-life sense, those politicians would have to be advocating the on-demand killing of the poor. For example, tax policies that give lower classes a refund, but not as big of a refund as millionaires is not analogous to killing a baby in utero.

With the death penalty, I agree 100%.
 
The point I am trying to make is that the Church should focus on many other moral things, not just abortion.
Many times, I have heard sermons at Mass about abortion, but it is rare that I hear sermons about other important issues of our times, including the death penalty.
 
YourNameHere said:
I hate the overlap between religion and politics, but if we must go this route, I would hope that there should be no communion for politicians who hurt the poor, indigent, and aged through implementing legislation that restricts funding for programs that help those who are in need.
And no communion for politicians who favor lethal injection or other forms of lethal punishment for crimes.
Click to expand...
But it’s not the same thing. When a Catholic has or performs an abortion, they are automatically excommunicated. An automatic excommunication doesn’t happen when someone fails the the Corporal Acts of Mercy.

Pro abortion Catholic politicians are supporting and defending an excommunicating act. In centuries past, such a Catholic politician would have been excommunicated himself.

The reality is that very few politicians who you say “hurt the poor” actually want to hurt the poor. They simply disagree regarding which govt should pay. Sure, some are scumbags (just like in both parties), but most of them simply disagree with these programs being on the federal level.

The United States Constitution says that all power not detailed in the constitution defaults to the states, not the federal govt. In Canada, it’s the other way around. In many countries in Europe, they don’t have a federation, they have a unitary govt. And few federations that exist are like Canada, power defaults to the national govt.

People often look to what other nations are doing, but we have to realize that the United States is constitutionally different. We were established with subsidiary in mind.

It’s not that Republicans in Congress are against the poor. It’s that they feel that most domestic & social policies & programs should be on the State, County, and municipal levels.

God Bless.
 
YourNameHere said:
The point I am trying to make is that the Church should focus on many other moral things, not just abortion.
Many times, I have heard sermons at Mass about abortion, but it is rare that I hear sermons about other important issues of our times, including the death penalty.
Click to expand...
I think there are few logical reasons for this.
  1. inappropriate use of the death penalty is a sin of the govt. But abortion is a sin committed by individuals, including some sitting in the pews.
  2. the bishops talk about the death penalty a lot via the USCCB and via the individual State Catholic Bishops Conferences. The bishops lobby the state and federal govts about the death penalty all the time. Very few of us sitting in the pews have any power over the death penalty, esp when it’s not an issue politicians are running on.
  3. I think it depends on which state* you live in. In some states, the death penalty is already illegal. And in some states where the death penalty is still legal, it is rarely (if not never) used. So why would a priest in one of those states focus on it?
  4. Finally, abortion is an absolute evil. Never acceptable under any situations. While the death penalty, when performed by a legitimate govt, is a matter of prudential judgement. Yes, Pope John Paul II started the teaching that in first world nations, the death penalty should not be needed anymore, but the death penalty is morally neutral. The moral question is which crimes warrant the death penalty and which ones do not.
NOTE: I strongly believe that the death penalty should be far more rare than it is today. But I do believe that there are some crimes / criminals that are too dangerous to society to be kept in jail. Hitler & Osama bin Laden are perfect, yet extreme, examples. Point is, the death penalty itself is not immoral. But the application of it can be. While, abortion is always immoral.

NOTE 2: * 19 states already have made the death penalty illegal (starting with Michigan in 1846), plus another 13 have a “hiatus” on the death penalty. 15, when you include the military and federal govt. Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia

God bless
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Church is a one-trick pony.
Abortion, abortion, abortion.
I do not favor abortion. I support the church’s stand on this issue.
But can’t we Catholics apply our moral outrage towards other issues, besides abortion?
If Republicans (Democrats or independents) in Congress can be against abortion, they can tackle tough issues like domestic violence and social policies and programs. Those things should not be relegated to the state, county, and municipal level.
We either have morals or we do not. We are not obliged to pick and choose which moral issues we turn a blind eye toward.
 
YourNameHere said:
I hate the overlap between religion and politics, but if we must go this route, I would hope that there should be no communion for politicians who hurt the poor, indigent, and aged through implementing legislation that restricts funding for programs that help those who are in need.
And no communion for politicians who favor lethal injection or other forms of lethal punishment for crimes.
Click to expand...
Would this make you more holy and bring you closer to God? (witnessing others being denied communion, I mean.)
 
Last edited:
YourNameHere said:
If Republicans (Democrats or independents) in Congress can be against abortion, they can tackle tough issues like domestic violence and social policies and programs. Those things should not be relegated to the state, county, and municipal level.
Click to expand...
Again, there is a difference. Abortion is murder. And was considered murder until Roe v Wade. Roe V Wade was a Supreme Court case, which means abortion can only be addressed on the federal level (or via a Constitutional Convention). However, even with murder, the definition of “First Degree Murder” is different in each state.

Republicans are not afraid to tackle tough issues like domestic violence and social policy programs. They do it all the time on the state, county, and municipal levels. But the US Constitution specifically places those issues on the state level. Most Republicans believe that Congress does not have the legal right to create laws unless the category is specifically given to the Congress by the Constitution. This is why there isn’t a universal definition of First Degree Murder.

Most Republicans are anti-federalists, while most Democrats are federalists (just like the original two parties). So again, it’s not that Republicans are against social programs. It’s that they are against federal programs because the Constitutions gives the power to the people and to the States.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
No. I do not have the right to judge others. That is in the hands of God.
 
We are ALL, us.
You cannot separate the federal from the states. It is the United States. Not the 50 States of America.
If you and others want to hide behind this state’s rights vs. fed’s rights, feel free to do that. Folks have been trying to do that since shortly after the Civic War. They tried then to make an issue of slavery needing to be a right best settled by each state.
The federal government needs to lend a hand in all social and moral issues of our times, not just abortion.
 
YourNameHere said:
I do not favor abortion. I support the church’s stand on this issue.
But can’t we Catholics apply our moral outrage towards other issues, besides abortion?
Click to expand...
Yes there are other important issues, but surely the willful, deliberate murder of the most innocent, defenceless children in the place they should be most safe, in the only home they have ever known and killed in the most brutal of manners, is in a whole league of evil of its own?
 
since when is murder a federal crime? Most are not, in fact. They are state crimes in most cases. There has to be some reason the murder falls under federal jurisdiction, such as murder of a FBI agent or a federal judge, or using a mailbomb or violating some other Federal law in the process.

That is why they invented the “denying civil rights” laws to go after people who killed blacks and civil rights activists, because back in the day many state and local officials and courts and juries would not convict even the most blatant criminals.
 
  1. people have not been hiding behind states’ rights since after the Civil War. It’s been ever since the Revolutionary War.
The two first political parties were literally called “Federalists” and “Anti-Federalists.” Thomas Jefferson was the leader of the Anti-Federalists during the Presidency of John Adams and during Jefferson’s own presidency.

The federal govt does NOT need to lend a hand in all social & moral issues because there is NO way to issue a blanket policies and laws that satisfy everyone in all 50 states.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the people who live in all 50 states are truly different. Each state has it’s own unique culture, even if it’s just a sub-culture.

Also each of the states have different needs and different infrastructure.

Let’s just look at the national Real ID Act. The law requires the States to update their driver’s license program so they know that people who receive drivers licences and state IDs are actually who they say they are. In other words, to make sure people don’t use a fake identity when getting a driver’s licence. Groups like the ACLU actually sued because they said it violates the Tenth Amendment. The Real ID Act has been a good example of states fighting the Congress due to “states’ rights” - and this hasn’t been Blue state vs Red State. The states that were fighting this were quite diverse.

Point it, just because someone wants social programs at the state level does NOT mean that they are anti-poor, etc. And honestly, having social programs at the State and County levels is more in line with the Catholic principle of subsidiarity and is a better way to hold the govt accountable.

God Bless.

 
Canvas said:
since when is murder a federal crime? Most are not, in fact. They are state crimes in most cases. There has to be some reason the murder falls under federal jurisdiction, such as murder of a FBI agent or a federal judge, or using a mailbomb or violating some other Federal law in the process.

That is why they invented the “denying civil rights” laws to go after people who killed blacks and civil rights activists, because back in the day many state and local officials and courts and juries would not convict even the most blatant criminals.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, you are correct. I meant that murder can be crime at the federal level. I’ve edited my post
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top