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

[Chris_LaRock]

Actually, the person at Priest for Life, said it was immoral to induce labor, even to save the life of the mother.

Because its the sort of situation I presented, that many so called pro-choice candidates vote the way they do.

Jim

It’s immoral to induce labor, even if the intent is to deliver the child alive?

What if a woman is past due?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

It is not immoral to induce delivery of a viable child. It is immoral, and abortion, if labor is induced to deliver child that is not viable and the purpose is abortion.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Chris_LaRock]

It is not immoral to induce delivery of a viable child. It is immoral, and abortion, if labor is induced to deliver child that is not viable and the purpose is abortion.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I agree with that.

But let’s suppose a non-viable child is delivered and placed into an incubator?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I agree with that.

But let’s suppose a non-viable child is delivered and placed into an incubator?

If labor is induced to kill the child it is abortion. If labor is induced to save the child, it is the proper practice of medicine.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[maggiemay2u]

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.

No matter how they try to parse it, these two guys are as pro-abortion as they come. So very sad, especially Kennedy. My mother’s heart was broken by his anti-life posture.

Ted Kennedy’s voting record:

*  Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
* Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
* Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
* Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
* Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
* Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims. (Sep 2006)
* Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
* Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

Kerry’s voting record:

Yes, Kerry did vote against Laci Peterson law. (Oct 2004)​

Against partial-birth abortion but there are exceptions. (Oct 2004)​

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)​

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)​

Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)​

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)​

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)​

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)​

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)​

Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)​

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)​

Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)​

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)​

Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)​

Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)​

Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims. (Sep 2006)​

Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)​

Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)​

Protect the reproductive rights of women. (Jan 1993)​

Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)​

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.

I believe we’re in a war for life. Our side has suffered numerous setbacks, but we can no more give up the struggle than we could have ceded Britain to the Nazi’s or Hawaii to the Japanese. The fact that we have to fight the insidious foe through changing hearts makes the struggle more protracted.

If all the things that are on now the table regarding partial birth, lack of parental notification, and embryonic testing were known in 1973, the populous would have gone into sensory overload, and revolted against the culture of death.

It goes back to the old saying about the devil not trying to buy your soul all at once, but rather one nibble at a time.

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

Jim–please tell me what issue is more pressing to all humanity, than this? The way I see it, to deprive an innocent of his or her right to breathe, thrive, suffer, excel, and struggle is to deprive each of us of a piece of ourselves…

Jim

 

[Lucania]

How would one know if the person presenting themselves for Communion didn’t go to Confession the night before?

You wouldn’t know about average Joe, but a Politician who publicly supports Abortion would need to publicly denounce it as well.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It’s immoral to induce labor, even if the intent is to deliver the child alive?

What if a woman is past due?

If inducing labor causes the baby to die, the priest at Priest for Life said it was immoral, even if the purpose was to save the mother from medical complications. This despite the fact that the baby had no chance survival. This contradicted three other priest, who said it was a moral choice for the mother to have made.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It is not immoral to induce delivery of a viable child. It is immoral, and abortion, if labor is induced to deliver child that is not viable and the purpose is abortion.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

define the “purpose is abortion.”

In the case I spoke of, inducing labor was for the health of the mother. The baby would’ve never make it to viability.

Jim

 

[estesbob]

If inducing labor causes the baby to die, the priest at Priest for Life said it was immoral, even if the purpose was to save the mother from medical complications. This despite the fact that the baby had no chance survival. This contradicted three other priest, who said it was a moral choice for the mother to have made.

Jim

The priests for life priest was wrong. Priests are not infallible. I would hope that a Catholic politician would not take the word of a single priest in examining this issue. Although having heard Nancy Pelosi speak this weekend it is apparent that Pro-abortion Catholic politicians dont have a clue as to what the Catholic teaching is or , more likely, know it but don’t want to admit it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

maggiemay2u:
Read the arguments on why they voted no on these issues.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not taking their sides here, but I’ve seen too many times where people criticize candidates votes based on the title of particular bills, without learning anything beyond that.

In all cases, their position is, “keep the government out of this decision,” which I tend to agree with.

The Church would do better to focus their energy on educating people, to the morals of abortion.

The political fight is not winning, because the Church isn’t changing the minds and hearts of people.

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

Jim

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

define the “purpose is abortion.”

In the case I spoke of, inducing labor was for the health of the mother. The baby would’ve never make it to viability.

Jim

The purpose of abortion is to kill the child. This is always wrong and condemned by the Church. We have all heard that the end does not justify the means. As such we cannot kill the child if the purpose is to save the mother. The Child is an innocent human being in this scenario.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The purpose of abortion is to kill the child. This is always wrong and condemned by the Church. We have all heard that the end does not justify the means. a aAs such we cannot kill the child if the purpose is to save the mother. The Child is an innocent human being in this scenario.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

The purpose was for the mother’s health, not to kill the child. If the mother had her way, the child would’ve been brought into the world 20 weeks later. Such was not the case. The mother wept as she held her dead child in the delivery room. We all wept as we held him. And we wept when we were at his funeral.

In legal terms, inducing labor still came under the term abortion. Had she been 24 weeks along, there would’ve been some legal barriers to get through.

However, everyone involved including the priest, said it was not an abortion, but we all reject the typical words like, “abortion is murder,” etc.

BTW, the woman was my daughter and the child my grandson.

Jim

 

[estesbob]

Read the arguments on why they voted no on these issues.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not taking their sides here, but I’ve seen too many times where people criticize candidates votes based on the title of particular bills, without learning anything beyond that.

In all cases, their position is, “keep the government out of this decision,” which I tend to agree with.

The Church would do better to focus their energy on educating people, to the morals of abortion.

The political fight is not winning, because the Church isn’t changing the minds and hearts of people.

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

Jim

A self-fulfilling prophecy. The reason Roe V. Wade has not been overturned is because too many Catholics vote for pro-abortion candidates under the mistaken idea that Roe V. Wade will never be overturned.

Supporting the idea that the government needs to stay out of this shows such a profound ignorance of the horror of abortion that it almost takes one’s breath away. Would you say the government should stay out of it if there is a law allowing parents to kill their five-year-olds. If not now how is tha different from abortion? And why would we have to educate people that killing their children is wrong???

You always claim you are pro-life and say you are not apologizing for Pro-abortion Catholics but in post after post that is exacthat you do and now you admit that you don’t want the government involved in protecting these children all.!

By the way the “change the heart and minds” philosophy is just another way of saying “let the slaughter continue”. It is the exact same argument that was used to justify continuing slavery in the 1850s. I’m sure you didn’t think the government should have been involved in that either

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The purpose was for the mother’s health, not to kill the child. If the mother had her way, the child would’ve been brought into the world 20 weeks later. Such was not the case. The mother wept as she held her dead child in the delivery room. We all wept as we held him. And we wept when we were at his funeral.

In legal terms, inducing labor still came under the term abortion. Had she been 24 weeks along, there would’ve been some legal barriers to get through.

However, everyone involved including the priest, said it was not an abortion, but we all reject the typical words like, “abortion is murder,” etc.

BTW, the woman was my daughter and the child my grandson.
Jim

My heart goes out to you and I feel for you. My wife and I have been blessed with five children. For one of them, we were told that her pregnancy was in jeopardy and that her life was in danger. We opted to take no action other than to have my wife on total bed rest for the remaining 4 months of her pregnancy. The product was a beautiful girl and a mother of three wonderful grandchildren by her marriage. I am not judging you. I am telling you what the Church teaches. I have a vow to do only that and I will uphold this vow until I draw my dying breath. I can only say, if you relied upon the advice of a priest, go with that. I cannot change what I have stated.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[JimR-OCDS]

estesbob

A self-fulfilling prophecy. The reason Roe V. Wade has not been overturned is because too many Catholics vote for pro-abortion candidates under the mistaken idea that Roe V. Wade will never be overturned.

They vote this way because most Americans, want government to stay out of their lives, not because they are pro-abortion.

Supporting the idea that the government needs to stay out of this shows such a profound ignorance of the horror of abortion that it almost takes one’s breath away. Would you say the government should stay out of it if there is a law allowing parents to kill their five-year-olds. If not now how is tha different from abortion? And why would we have to educate people that killing their children is wrong???

This is a red herring argument. We live in a representative government where we are represented by our legislatures.
If you want your rep to change the laws on abortion, they you need make it known. However, the fact that the majority of Americans are pro-choice, means, without changing the hearts and minds of the majority, abortion will continue as us.

You always claim you are pro-life and say you are not apologizing for Pro-abortion Catholics but in post after post you do exactly and now admit that you don’t want the government involved in protecting these children all.!

I try to understand other points of view and I also understand the reality we live in. Also, I think some of the hate language coming out of pro-life camps does more harm than good. It does seem to push those on the edge to commit the atrocities we’ve seen, lately.

By the way the “change the heart and minds” philosophy is just another way of saying “let the slaughter continue”.

See above statement about such language.

With educating people, their hearts and minds will not change, regardless how much you call them murderers or doomed for hell.

Take a Christ-like approach to the issue, and I believe we’ll convert more hearts and minds than any other way.

It is the exact same argument that was used to justify continuing slavery in the 1850s.

Another red-herring.

I’m sure you didn’t think the government should have been involved in that either.

Insulting statements like this, don’t work.

Jim

 

[maggiemay2u]

Read the arguments on why they voted no on these issues.

Jim–the fact is they’ve made their choice–regardless of the reasons (political expediency, perhaps?) it is directly in opposition to the Church.They need to stand up like grown ups and take the consequences. To follow Church law, as they expect the public to follow the secular law they produce, is an appropriate response from lawmakers, no?

They build into the secular law consequences for failure to comply. Why is it then, that they feel their violation of Church law does not apply. They get to “go by what their conscience says”. How would that fly in court?

In all cases, their position is, “keep the government out of this decision,” which I tend to agree with.

But when it comes to say, affirmative action, they don’t seem to have any qualms about government getting involved.

The Church would do better to focus their energy on educating people, to the morals of abortion.

Wars are fought on many fronts.

The political fight is not winning, because the Church isn’t changing the minds and hearts of people.

"The Harris Poll® has been measuring attitudes toward the Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion ever since it was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973. During the 33 years since then, Harris Polls found majorities, between 52 and 65 percent of all U.S. adults, in favor of Roe vs. Wade. Now, a new Harris Poll finds that Roe vs. Wade is supported only by a slender 49 percent to 47 percent plurality. In other words, support and opposition are almost equal…"credit Harris interactive

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

As the pro-aborts fight for the right to have mothers choose to have born alive aborted children die in buckets, the hearts of the nation are being turned.

Jim

 

[Pumpkin]

What about highly public “Catholic” figures who support candidates. I am thinking of a couple of nuns one who has already spoken and another who will be speaking at a Convention this week.

I have coworkers who are Baptist and they think we are all crazy because they see highly public Nuns and self proclaimed “catholics” in total defiance to the church teachings. The two sisters are all but endorsing the most pro-abortion, pro-infanticide candidate I have seen. I would like to see their Bishops discuss their views and redirect the faithful. Are they aloud to partake in Communion? Surely they would know they are in defiance of Catholic teaching.

In my mind they hold more weight for the average “catholic” (cafeteria style) than a politician. I have family members who will feel justified in their political stance purely because a nun or a priest is in support of a candidate.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

My heart goes out to you and I feel for you. My wife and I have been blessed with five children. For one of them, we were told that her pregnancy was in jeopardy and that her life was in danger. We opted to take no action other than to have my wife on total bed rest for the remaining 4 months of her pregnancy. The product was a beautiful girl and a mother of three wonderful grandchildren by her marriage. I am not judging you. I am telling you what the Church teaches. I have a vow to do only that and I will uphold this vow until I draw my dying breath. I can only say, if you relied upon the advice of a priest, go with that. I cannot change what I have stated.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Thanks for your kind words Ed.

My wife too went through a tough pregnancy, and my son was born prematurely after 27 weeks. That was 27 years ago, although he has cerebral palsy as a result, he’s doing well, married and owns a home.

However, in the case of my daughter, the baby was deformed so much, his little heart never developed. I can’t pronounce the medical term, but essentially his bones broke as they grew. As a result, his chest cavity never grew, and so his heart was too small to sustain life. Nothing the doctors nor my daughter could’ve done anything to save the baby.

The good news is, she had two healthy boys as soon as she was able. One is 6.5yrs and the other is 5yrs old

Jim

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

This is a red herring argument. We live in a representative government where we are represented by our legislatures. If you want your rep to change the laws on abortion, they you need make it known. However, the fact that the majority of Americans are pro-choice, means, without changing the hearts and minds of the majority, abortion will continue as us.

As long as we are speaking of red herring arguments, you just made a whopper. Our legislature does not legislate that which is objectively moral. Just because this is the law of the land, it does not make it morally correct. The legislature is not the Magisterium, which is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Magisterium has said that abortion is wrong. Who is correct, the legislature or the Magisterium?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As long as we are speaking of red herring arguments, you just made a whopper. Our legislature does not legislate that which is objectively moral. Just because this is the law of the land, it does not make it morally correct. The legislature is not the Magisterium, which is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Magisterium has said that abortion is wrong. Who is correct, the legislature or the Magisterium?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

You, myself and the Catholic Church, understand that killing an unborn child for convenience, is immoral.

However, we don’t live under the rules of the Catholic Church,(thank God), nor are we in the majority on this issue, unfortunately. Even the Jewish religion, isn’t in agreement on abortion being imoral in every case.

This is why, the only way to move ahead is to educate people.

I can tell people abortion is wrong, but unless they come to see it and believe it, they’re not going to change. They’re certainly not changing because the Catholic Church says its so.

Jim