Head of Vatican's Highest Court: Ministers Have "Obligation to Deny" Communion to Pro-Abortion Politicians

[elts1956]

YES he did. As did the new Bishop of Pittsburgh.

That surpised me a bit, as I understood his stance to be quite the opposite when Pope Benedict XVI visted the U.S. Or am I wrong about that?

 

[KathleenElsie]

That surpised me a bit, as I understood his stance to be quite the opposite when Pope Benedict XVI visted the U.S. Or am I wrong about that?

Do not know this information. The Bishop from Pittsburgh went to DC & NY. Our Bishop from Greensburg did not go.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Probably you haven’t heard it from pro-abortion candidates, but pro-choice politicians like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, its precisely why they voted against various bills on abortion and why they said they voted against them.

Even the strictest proposed abortion bans contain exception clauses for when the mother’s life is threatened, such as that one in South Dakota (North Dakota?) that failed to pass a few years ago. It is therefore ridiculous to assert that the absence of such exception clauses is the reason politicians vote the way they do. Pro-abortion politicians like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry vote the way they do on abortion not because of the rare situation you describe, but rather because it’s very difficult financially to sustain a political career as a pro-life Democrat.

It’s all about money and power. Any Catholic politician who supports keeping abortion legal is a sellout who deserves to be shouted down and thrown out of office.

Roe V Wade will never be over turned, and as soon as pro-life people understand that, and shift their energy on education, they will be wasting their time and involved in fights where hatred is often generated rather than understanding.

It can and will be overturned.

Politicians such as the senators from Massachusetts and the Governor of Kansas–faithful Catholics all–are not “Pro-abortion” as the simple-minded claim. They have all made clear their personal opposition to abortion but realize that they serve all Americans, not just the Catholic Church.

Wrong. Abortion is not a theological issue or one of religious dogma. A government has the obligation to protect its people’s basic human rights. An entire class of people in America today - the unborn - is denied their most basic right.

But nice try.

If a dry Southern Baptist politician insisted that his or her personal moral objection to drinking or card playing mandated that he or she work to make both of those activitites illegal, I suspect that most Catholics would object. Well, for some Christian Americans alcohol is a greater sin than abortion, believe it or not. Thank Heaven THEY cannot make their religious peculiarities the law of the land for all Americans.

If someone considers drinking or playing cards wrong, they do so for strictly religious reasons. This is not the case for abortion, which is a violation of a human being’s most fundamental right.

Opposition to abortion is not a “religious peculiarity.” Do you believe in human rights, Santino?

The final arbiter of whether any Catholic should refrain from receiving Holy Communion is the individual conscience. When any of us face our final judgment, no bishop nor pope will be anywhere in sight, only the all-knowing and all-merciful God.

Ministers have no right to judge another person’s conscience.

No one is talking about a minister’s judging “another person’s conscience.”

But the United States isn’t ruled by a theocracy, but a democratically elected government. Also, not everyone is a Catholic, holding to Catholic teachings. Jews have a different moral teaching on abortion than the Catholic Church, so do Hindus and Buddhist. If the majority supports pro-choice, well, its the way its going to be, until the majority changes its mind.

Granted, sometimes the majority is wrong, but I wouldn’t want to be governed any other way.

There’s such a thing called “the tyranny of the majority.” Imagine that there is a democratically-run country consisting of only twenty people - thirteen men, seven women. They hold a vote over whether or not rape will be allowed. The women and two of the men (that’s 9) vote that it should be illegal in their tiny community. The other 11 men vote that it should be legal. That’s 11 to 9 - so rape is legal for them.

Would that be fair? Would that be right? Of course not. It is horrifying. It is unthinkable. Human rights come first. That’s why our country is not a strict democracy, but a republic.

When the will of the majority threatens the rights of the minority, the will of the majority counts for nothing.

 

[elts1956]

estesbob

Probably you haven’t heard it from pro-abortion candidates, but pro-choice politicians like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, its precisely why they voted against various bills on abortion and why they said they voted against them.

They tried to. Fundamentalist republicans blocked the amendments.

I think understanding the situation further than just from headlines and sound bites, helps us get a better perspective on the issue.

Her misstatement is obvious and she is wrong.

Actually I’m disappointed, because neither side actually thinks abortion is an issue anymore. They’re merely throwing meat to their core constituents to feed on, nothing more.
Neither side has abortion on their radar.

Of course they do. But, they keep getting elected, by using single issues like this, rather than address issues that are more pressing.

Jim

By the way Jim, there are no such critters as Pro-choice Catholics. When it comes to the life or death of our most innocent beings, no one has a choice.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I truly find it amazing the way human minds can twist the truth to come up with ways of justifying what they want. And then say that what they are doing id OK with the Church. Just don’t play poker with Satan, you will lose every time.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Ender]

Didn’t Wuerl make a recent statement about this that was in accord with what Burke said?

The last comment from Archbishop Wuerl on this subject (with which I am familiar) was to say that the responsibility to withhold communion wasn’t his but belonged to the bishop of the politician’s home diocese. I think he basically washed his hands of the problem. It will be interesting to see what he says if Archbishop Niederauer (Pelosi’s bishop) states that she should not present herself for communion.

Ender