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

[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

I agree with everything you said except that portion I bolded. Just because the teachings of the Catholic Church are not the law of the land, does not mean that we are not morally bound by those teachings.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[rlg94086]

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

Exactly. We need to educate people, so the majority does hold our view and the laws are changed. We also need to educate individuals who are faced with these choices, so they make the right choice, as taught to us by Christ’s Church on earth (i.e. Catholic Church).

 

[estesbob]

Exactly. We need to educate people, so the majority does hold our view and the laws are changed. We also need to educate individuals who are faced with these choices, so they make the right choice, as taught to us by Christ’s Church on earth (i.e. Catholic Church).

57% of the people in this country believe that either abortion should be banned outright or available only in cases of rape incest or threat to the mother’s** physical** health . Only 20% or so believe abortion should be available under all circumstances, which is the law of the land now.

Problem is not changing hearts and minds the problem is that the Supreme Court took this out of the public discourse in 1972. It would not matter if 90% of the people were pro-life as long as this decision stands. The only hope for overturning Roe V. Wade is a pro-life president backed by a pro-life Senate. Once the Supreme Court overrules Roe V. Wade the battle will be on a state-by-state basis.

 

[rlg94086]

57% of the people in this country believe that even abortion should be banned outright or available only in cases of rape incest or threat to the mother’s** physical** health .

Problem is not changing hearts and minds the problem is that the Supreme Court took this out of the public discourse in 1972. It would not matter if 90% of the people were pro-life as long as this decision stands. The only hope for overturning Roe V. Wade is a pro-life president backed by a pro-life Senate. Once the Supreme Court overrules Roe V. Wade the battle will be on a state-by-state basis.

Well, I think we need both. The larger the majority, the more likely we will have success.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I agree with everything you said except that portion I bolded. Just because the teachings of the Catholic Church are not the law of the land, does not mean that we are not morally bound by those teachings.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

We as Catholics are morally bound to the teachings of the Church.

But not all Americans are Catholics and many who are, lack the understanding on this teaching, for whatever reason.

In order to change their way of thinking, we have to be examples of understanding and compassion, not of judge and excutioners.

Jim

 

[estesbob]

Well, I think we need both. The larger the majority, the more likely we will have success.

The only majority of that matters is a majority in the Supreme Court. The next president will appoint two possibly three Supreme Court justices. If that president is pro-abortion it does not matter if 100% of the people in this country oppose abortion it will still continue to be the law the land and will continue to be so for at least another generation. Despite all the wishful thinking we may have a constitutional amendment would be impossible.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

57% of the people in this country believe that either abortion should be banned outright or available only in cases of rape incest or threat to the mother’s** physical** health . Only 20% or so believe abortion should be available under all circumstances, which is the law of the land now.

Problem is not changing hearts and minds the problem is that the Supreme Court took this out of the public discourse in 1972. It would not matter if 90% of the people were pro-life as long as this decision stands. The only hope for overturning Roe V. Wade is a pro-life president backed by a pro-life Senate. Once the Supreme Court overrules Roe V. Wade the battle will be on a state-by-state basis.

It does matter if people are pro-life. If Roe V Wade were overturned today, it would merely send the issue of abortion back to the states. I know few state legislators who could win an election, opposing abortion, especially here in Massachusetts.

Unless you change the hearts and minds of people, their is no chance for stopping abortion in this country.

Jim

 

[rlg94086]

The only majority of that matters is a majority in the Supreme Court. The next president will appoint two possibly three Supreme Court justices. If that president is pro-abortion it does not matter if 100% of the people in this country oppose abortion it will still continue to be the law the land and will continue to be so for at least another generation. Despite all the wishful thinking we may have a constitutional amendment would be impossible.

I didn’t mention a constitutional amendment in that post, but let me . My statement still stands…the larger majority, the more likely we will have success.

That applies to…

• a greater majority voting for pro-life politicians
• a greater majority electing a pro-life president that will put the right judges on the bench
• a greater majority electing senators who will approve the president’s nominations
• a greater majority in state elections, so when Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion can be ended in more states.
• a greater majority of individuals choosing life
  Now, all that said, sure, I would be in favor of an amendment. But a greater majority is needed for success, regardless of method. I don’t understand why you don’t see that. We do need to educate people about abortion for all of those reasons.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

We as Catholics are morally bound to the teachings of the Church.

Correct

But not all Americans are Catholics and many who are, lack the understanding on this teaching, for whatever reason.

Correct

In order to change their way of thinking, we have to be examples of understanding and compassion, not of judge and executioners.

I don’t think you saw, or at least I have not seen ,any of us trying to be judge and executioner. That simply is not our job. Thank God. We are all called to teach the truth, not condemn. Nor should we back down from the truth for fear of what others may think or say about us.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[maggiemay2u]

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

My aunt went through a similar crisis about 40 years ago. She was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s. She was told she would die prior to birth without treatment, she received counsel from her priest she could terminate the pregnancy.She refused abortion and as a consequence, died within days of my cousin being born.

My mother, while devastated, always referred to my aunt as “her sainted sister” and her niece as “God’s great gift”

I lost several pregnancies prior to the birth of my first son. My heart goes out to your daughter.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Deacon Ed B

I don’t think you saw, or at least I have not seen ,any of us trying to be judge and executioner.

Take a closer look at the words that are used by pro-life people, in threads in this forum, and around the nation, concerning politicians and abortion.

Harsh simplistic language, like murder, slaughter, evil, etc, which are in actuality, directed at the person not the issue.

Its divisive and not conducive toward changing people’s hearts and minds.

BTW, I was once a neoconservative who debated against abortion at every level, and supported some of the worse politicians, in the name of being pro-life.

Experience like my daughter had, changed my perspective.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

My aunt went through a similar crisis about 40 years ago. She was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s. She was told she would die prior to birth without treatment, she received counsel from her priest she could terminate the pregnancy.She refused abortion and as a consequence, died within days of my cousin being born.

My mother, while devastated, always referred to my aunt as “her sainted sister” and her niece as “God’s great gift”

I lost several pregnancies prior to the birth of my first son. My heart goes out to your daughter.

God bless your aunt!

Jim

 

[maggiemay2u]

Deacon Ed B

Take a closer look at the words that are used by pro-life people, in threads in this forum, and around the nation, concerning politicians and abortion.

Harsh simplistic language, like murder, slaughter, evil, etc, which are in actuality, directed at the person not the issue.

Its divisive and not conducive toward changing people’s hearts and minds.

BTW, I was once a neoconservative who debated against abortion at every level, and supported some of the worse politicians, in the name of being pro-life.

Experience like my daughter had, changed my perspective.

Jim

Jim–how do we refer to the deaths of the Rwandans/Cambodians/Jews?

Murder/slaughter/evil.

So is the i**ndiscriminate **slaughter of the unborn.

It is** personal** to every person who believes your grandson, my cousin, and my children were human beings.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim–how do we refer to the deaths of the Rwandans/Cambodians/Jews?

Murder/slaughter/evil.

So is the i**ndiscriminate **slaughter of the unborn.

It is** personal** to every person who believes your grandson, my cousin, and my children were human beings.

We don’t have to educate Americans about the deaths of Rwandans, Cambodians and Jews as being immoral.

However, there is not an equal consensus on the immorality of abortion, and in order to educate people, we need to avoid such language, because it only sets up a mental block for them, when discussing it.

Jim

 

[maggiemay2u]

We don’t have to educate Americans about the deaths of Rwandans, Cambodians and Jews as being immoral.

However, there is not an equal consensus on the immorality of abortion, and in order to educate people, we need to avoid such language, because it only sets up a mental block for them, when discussing it.

Jim

And therein we disagree. By most polls, Americans are more split on this horror than any time since 1973. Each time the testimony of the Illinois nurse who cradled the aborted baby, she found in a waste bin, in her arms as he died, is mirrored with one of the candidate’s refusal to grant that child basic medical care on the legislature floor, the word evil becomes very real.

If an abortion was not involved, there would have been lots of charges stemming from murder statutes.

The media, which has been used so successfully by the left, is being left behind by the internet. Just as a Jeeves or google site can take me to unexpected points of view, so can the callousness of our politicians reach the populous. I see real hope for the future.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

However**, there is not an equal consensus on the immorality of abortion,** and in order to educate people, we need to avoid such language, because it only sets up a mental block for them, when discussing it.Jim

Last time I had a moral theology class, consensus was not what was used to determine the morality of abortion.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[maggiemay2u]

Last time I had a moral theology class, consensus was not what was used to determine the morality of abortion.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Better point than mine. Thanks!

 

[quiet52]

from DarkNight :

Originally Posted by DarkNight
Jesus did not deny His grace to sinners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris LaRock
True, but people are still called to repentance.

I did not mean to imply we are not called to repentance.
What I did intend to imply is that in order to hear that call we, like the Good Thief, may require very close contact with Jesus Himself to truly realize the magnitude of His love.

Each time I receive Him, I am awed by His love for me and I am overcome with gratitude that He persistently nudges me towards my path as I walk my journey through life.

He continually reaches out to me, a sinner.
I can not deny HIm to others who so desperately need Him.

God doesn’t limit His grace to those receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist.

No matter the need, we are not to receive the Eucharist if we are not worthy to – see 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.

If someone is genuinely in awe of the Blessed Sacrament (Jesus) and overcome with gratitude, then he/she would genuinely repent and seek the sacrament of Reconciliation prior to receiving the Eucharist.

 

[Santino_50]

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.

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.

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.

 

[elts1956]

Why single out just this one sin by which to judge a politician?
What about those who lie?
What about those who commit adultry?
What about those who covet?
What about those who kill by supporting the death penalty?
What about those who steal (i.e. making decisions based on personal gain rather than the desires of the community)?

Why just politicians?
Most people I know do not hold politicians in high regard; definitely not as moral leaders.
What about community leaders?
What about those people who are popular in the parish?

And what if someone doesn’t know a particular politician’s beliefs?
Shouldn’t we announce why the priest is refusing communion to some but not others so as to prevemt even more confusion among those lay people who are assumed to hold the person in high regard as a moral leader?

What of those who hold the same beliefs but are not a person of reknown? What of those who don’t make their true beliefs known to the public at large (just to those in their local sphere)?

This is a very slippery slope.
It would be good to remember Jeremiah “Only God knows the hearts & minds of me; He will judge each accordingly”

Some seem to be preoccupied with pointing fingers at others and away from themselves.
I am reminded of Jesus’ description of the prayers of the pharisee versus those of the sinner.
Most especially that it was the sinner who went home satisfied.

Jesus did not deny His grace to sinners.
Why are we now attempting to limit that which Jesus Himself proved was limitless?

Go with Love, Go with God

Because the politicians who uphold abortion rights are public figures and espouse this belief in a public way. This gives scandal not only to the Catholic Church, but also misleads the uninformed.