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

[JimR-OCDS]

FYI, medical definition of Abortion

Definition of Abortion

Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.

A spontaneous abortion is the same as a miscarriage. The miscarriage of 3 or more consecutive pregnancies is termed habitual abortion.
medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2091

This was the definition I learned, before Roe V Wade.

Hope this helps define the term and how broad it is.

Jim

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I do not want to belabor the point. I am using the term abortion as it is commonly understood by the vast majority of people and as defined in the dictionary as, **“the termination of a pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or fetus that is incapable of survival” ** You are overlooking the last portion of the definition. With this in mind, Fortunately, not unfortunately would be the operative word.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[maggiemay2u]

maggiemay2u;

Please, keep your sanctimonious statements to yourself. Its this type of attitude that closes the doors to open dialog, where educating people may be possible. Its the very attitude that people who are pro-choice turn off to. It gets us no where.

Jim- I’m sorry if my honest and visceral reaction to a statement that dismisses the life of another offends you. If you believe it was an attempt to do so, please reflect on how your statement may have come off to others.

Doctors can determine with 100% certainty, when a premature baby born deformed, will live or not. I’m not talking about routine procedures, where there is hope. My son was born 27 weeks premature, and all seemed well for the first two days. Then his entire system collapsed and at no time did any doctor or nurse suggest that it would be better to just let him die. They had hope that they could save him and they did. However, I saw the cases that it was hopeless and the doctors couldn’t do anything. If some of the pro-life laws were passed as they were written, these doctors would’ve had to try to do the impossible, thereby causing more suffering on the baby, for a hopeless end.

“Amillia Taylor shouldn’t be alive. She was born at less than 22 weeks - in the US, where babies aren’t considered ‘viable’ until 23 weeks. But her desperate mother lied to doctors about how far gone she was, and Amillia is now the most premature baby to have ever survived.” (Credit The Guardian)

Born alive under what condition? The medical terms are too complex to be defined in a simply written law. Only a doctor at the scene can make a determination if there’s hope in trying to save the child, not a government agent.

The child I referenced, breathed independent of an respirator, for over two hours, in a trash bin. No incubator to warm him, no fluids to quench his thirst, and no one to cuddle or coo to him. Are you seriously trying to tell me this is the same treatment a WANTED child would have received.

Jim–I understand your demons, but to callously dismiss another human being to the whim of an abortionist physician is just that–callous.

If the child was not the product of an abortion then it would have been likely been unthinkable to put him in a trash bin–living or dead.

Yes, to the child, as an example I stated.

Then following your logic, all those kids who participate in the Special Olympics would be better off had they been allowed to perish at birth,I’m sure there are many doctors who would have agreed at the time.

Unfortunately, not all induced labors are done for the purpose of killing the child.

You’ve made yourself very clear in previous posts. I’m praying for you now, my friend.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

maggiemay2u:
Your sanctimonios post is both insulting and not worth responding to.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I do not want to belabor the point. I am using the term abortion as it is commonly understood by the vast majority of people and as defined in the dictionary as, "the termination of a pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or fetus that is incapable of survival" You are overlooking the last portion of the definition. With this in mind, Fortunately, not unfortunately would be the operative word.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Ed, doctors and lawyers don’t communicate in general terms.

To use term abortion in the narrow term here, does not define it accurately and is why the laws are rejected by many. They need to be more specific in the use of their terminology, thank God.

Politicians are generally lawyers and as lawyers, will look at every angle of a term to understand how it could be used in reality. As defined in the medical terms that I presented, the word “abortion,” is broader than the mere terminology used by the general public. If the law is written such, as they often are, then they have no choice but to vote against it.

I think many of the Bishops understand this and it is why, none have come down on any politicians who have voted against anti-abortion bills.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

I think there’s a difference in definitions here.

Abortion = the termination of a pregnancy, for whatever reasons.

Jim

Jim,

The way you stated it is that you feel that it is unfortunate that all induced labors do not end in the killing of a child.

In other words, you seemed to imply that you wished that all induced labors ended up with a dead child.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Your sanctimonios post is both insulting and not worth responding to.

Jim

Jim–I am the single-most flawed person on any of the forums here. This is not false humility, it is the fact I know I have many failings. If you want to see me as a pious hypocrite, so be it.

You have shared your particular plight and its associated heartache. Many people drop in and read only isolated posts without getting the anecdotal information from prior posts. They might get the impression that the rest (or at least I) agree with whatever has been said in the isolated post. In good conscience, I must refute that which I believe to be morally wrong, maybe not in an individual extreme case, but across the board. Perhaps you do the same.

I respect your right not to respond further, and wish you no harm.

As to the subject matter. With Pelosi putting it all out there, and bishops already condemning her opinions, then perhaps there will be impetus for more bishops to take a proactive stance. God’s grace and strength to our bishops in this critical election year.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Jim, you will remain in my prayers. Please keep me in yours.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[una_fides]

Oh but it is relevant.

When the Vatican comes out with statements concerning politicians being prohibited from receiving communion because of their votes on abortion issues, the public and many Catholics merely look back at the lack of moral judgment in the sex scandal and scoff.

Jim

They might, but one must remember the difference between holding to a dogma vs. hypocrisy in committing scandal. Priests and bishops are not perfect in their actions but the dogmas of the Church cannot be ignored without fault.

 

[Roy5]

A FEW POINTS

 1. DarkNight was right when he pointed out that many who take communion have major sins on their souls. Why p(name removed by moderator)oint only politicians who may even agree with the church on abortion but feel they must represent their constituencies? Or, they believe it improper to impose their religious views on the wider society?

  2. Whether receiving communion is valid or not should be decided by God and not by any church or priest. "Judge not...."

   3. What about those pedaphile priests, many of whom were protected by the church until the public media exposed them? What about the bishops who wanted to sweep all the under the rug? Should they be refused the Eucharist? I understand that even the priest most responsible for recently organizing the Papal Mass at Yankee Stadium now has been accused of boy molestation!  

   4. What about politicians who vote for war when "shock and awe' kills hundreds, even thousands, of innocent Iraqis or others (including babies in wombs)? Should they be denied communion?

   5. Besides. it's a very difficult issue. I recall a woman who became pregnant, mother of six already (the rhythm system failed more than once), and her doctor said as the time of delivery approached that it could be choosing between her life or that of the baby. I presume there are those readers who would say the mother shouldn't be given priority. I say, she would be leaving seven motherless children and a devoted husband (plus other loved ones) and she certainly should have first priority. If my position is disapproved by the Church, the Church can take a hike. 

   6. Or, what about the young downs syndrome teenager who was gang-raped? Does she have to bear that baby? Who is going to care for it? 

   7. God (apparently) aborts babies through miscarriages countless times every day. If he were to show up 'in person' at Mass should he be turned away from the Eucharist?

   8. The early Church Fathers held various views as to when an embryo was a baby with a soul. I believe Augustine may have said three months, though I forget precisely. (It's been years since I read Augustine.)

   9. The wise course is to make abortions as rare as possible, which is the goal of most politicians.  It seems especially unfortunate that the church sharply condemns abortion while it also condemns artifical birth control that can help avoid abortions. The vast majority of Catholics, of course, ignore that teaching, and the inability of the church to understand married sex has led to a large exodus from the church. If it weren't for illegal immigrants the Catholic population in the USA would have fallen rapidly. Those leaving seem to divide between disinterest in church altogether or become Protestants - split between mainstream (liberal) and evangelical Protestants. Few evangelicals oppose artificial birth control anymore than they oppose prescribed drugs or vaccinations - also 'artificial' rather than natural methods.

 

[KathleenElsie]

A FEW POINTS

1. DarkNight was right when he pointed out that many who take communion have major sins on their souls. Why p(name removed by moderator)oint only politicians who may even agree with the church on abortion but feel they must represent their constituencies? Or, they believe it improper to impose their religious views on the wider society? I would hazard a guess that the majority that have sin on their souls are not being put on TV and RADIO and in the News to be looked up to as an example to a nation.
2. Whether receiving communion is valid or not should be decided by God and not by any church or priest. “Judge not…”
   The verse reads “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven” argue with the Bible
3. What about those pedophile priests, many of whom were protected by the church until the public media exposed them? What about the bishops who wanted to sweep all the under the rug? Should they be refused the Eucharist? I understand that even the priest most responsible for recently organizing the Papal Mass at Yankee Stadium now has been accused of boy molestation! Unsubstantiated so far. These men should be tried and sent to prison if guilty of a crime.
4. What about politicians who vote for war when "shock and awe’ kills hundreds, even thousands, of innocent Iraqis or others (including babies in wombs)? Should they be denied communion?War is not considered on the same level as the killing of the unborn or euthanasia.
5. Besides. it’s a very difficult issue. I recall a woman who became pregnant, mother of six already (the rhythm system failed more than once), and her doctor said as the time of delivery approached that it could be choosing between her life or that of the baby. I presume there are those readers who would say the mother shouldn’t be given priority. I say, she would be leaving seven motherless children and a devoted husband (plus other loved ones) and she certainly should have first priority. If my position is disapproved by the Church, the Church can take a hike. As for the Church taking a hike I think it is the other way around. The person that won’t follow the teachings of any faith they profess are free to leave as you put it to “take a hike”.
6. Or, what about the young downs syndrome teenager who was gang-raped? Does she have to bear that baby? Who is going to care for it? Well if the pro-choice people haver there way that young woman would never have been born in the first place. Many of the people I know have adopted special needs babies and children so that is a STRAWMAN.
7. God (apparently) aborts babies through miscarriages countless times every day. If he were to show up ‘in person’ at Mass should he be turned away from the Eucharist? Uncalled for. Abortion in the context we are talking about is the deliberate killing of a child.
8. The early Church Fathers held various views as to when an embryo was a baby with a soul. I believe Augustine may have said three months, though I forget precisely. (It’s been years since I read Augustine.) STRAWMAN. The humaneness is not the same as enrollment or viability. Three subjects with differing answers.
9. The wise course is to make abortions as rare as possible, which is the goal of most politicians. If something is evil it is just as evil when rare. It seems especially unfortunate that the church sharply condemns abortion while it also condemns artificial birth control that can help avoid abortions. BC causes babies to be aborted in some cases.The vast majority of Catholics, of course, ignore that teaching, and the inability of the church to understand married sex has led to a large exodus from the church. If it weren’t for illegal immigrants the Catholic population in the USA would have fallen rapidly. Sadly our priests and bishops have not taught the true teachings on this subject.Those leaving seem to divide between disinterest in church altogether or become Protestants - split between mainstream (liberal) and evangelical Protestants. Few evangelicals oppose artificial birth control anymore than they oppose prescribed drugs or vaccinations - also ‘artificial’ rather than natural methods.

The fact is this subject only proves that some of our priests and bishops have not been true to the faith they process.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

A FEW POINTS

 1. DarkNight was right when he pointed out that many who take communion have major sins on their souls. Why p(name removed by moderator)oint only politicians who may even agree with the church on abortion but feel they must represent their constituencies? Or, they believe it improper to impose their religious views on the wider society?

  2. Whether receiving communion is valid or not should be decided by God and not by any church or priest. "Judge not...."

   3. What about those pedaphile priests, many of whom were protected by the church until the public media exposed them? What about the bishops who wanted to sweep all the under the rug? Should they be refused the Eucharist? I understand that even the priest most responsible for recently organizing the Papal Mass at Yankee Stadium now has been accused of boy molestation!  

   4. What about politicians who vote for war when "shock and awe' kills hundreds, even thousands, of innocent Iraqis or others (including babies in wombs)? Should they be denied communion?

   5. Besides. it's a very difficult issue. I recall a woman who became pregnant, mother of six already (the rhythm system failed more than once), and her doctor said as the time of delivery approached that it could be choosing between her life or that of the baby. I presume there are those readers who would say the mother shouldn't be given priority. I say, she would be leaving seven motherless children and a devoted husband (plus other loved ones) and she certainly should have first priority. If my position is disapproved by the Church, the Church can take a hike. 

   6. Or, what about the young downs syndrome teenager who was gang-raped? Does she have to bear that baby? Who is going to care for it? 

   7. God (apparently) aborts babies through miscarriages countless times every day. If he were to show up 'in person' at Mass should he be turned away from the Eucharist?

   8. The early Church Fathers held various views as to when an embryo was a baby with a soul. I believe Augustine may have said three months, though I forget precisely. (It's been years since I read Augustine.)

   9. The wise course is to make abortions as rare as possible, which is the goal of most politicians.  It seems especially unfortunate that the church sharply condemns abortion while it also condemns artifical birth control that can help avoid abortions. The vast majority of Catholics, of course, ignore that teaching, and the inability of the church to understand married sex has led to a large exodus from the church. If it weren't for illegal immigrants the Catholic population in the USA would have fallen rapidly. Those leaving seem to divide between disinterest in church altogether or become Protestants - split between mainstream (liberal) and evangelical Protestants. Few evangelicals oppose artificial birth control anymore than they oppose prescribed drugs or vaccinations - also 'artificial' rather than natural methods.

We have just witnessed a good example of relativism in action.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon ed B

 

[elts1956]

Your sanctimonios post is both insulting and not worth responding to.

Jim

Unfortunately, not all induced labors are done for the purpose of killing the child

Are you saying all induced labor should be done for the purpose of killing the child? I don’t understand.

 

[elts1956]

Your sanctimonios post is both insulting and not worth responding to.

Jim

Its not up to me, but personally, I think the issue is more complex than how its presented here, and I think the local Bishop needs to speak with the candidate one on one, and let him make the decision.

In no way, should an EMHC make the decision.

Jim

The stance of the Catholic Church has always been pro-life, anti-abortion. The Pope has stated this, more than one Pope, more than only one time. If our “intelligent” representatives can’t hear, or read, about this AND understand, they have no right to be in office.

 

[childofmary1143]

We have just witnessed a good example of relativism in action.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon ed B

Deacon Ed, I think you really hit it on the head. The level of obfuscation, spin doctoring here on the issue of denying communion to pro abortion politicians is incredible.

I really have to question how committed they are to being good Catholics.

 

[elts1956]

A FEW POINTS

 1. DarkNight was right when he pointed out that many who take communion have major sins on their souls. Why p(name removed by moderator)oint only politicians who may even agree with the church on abortion but feel they must represent their constituencies? Or, they believe it improper to impose their religious views on the wider society?

  2. Whether receiving communion is valid or not should be decided by God and not by any church or priest. "Judge not...."

   3. What about those pedaphile priests, many of whom were protected by the church until the public media exposed them? What about the bishops who wanted to sweep all the under the rug? Should they be refused the Eucharist? I understand that even the priest most responsible for recently organizing the Papal Mass at Yankee Stadium now has been accused of boy molestation!  

   4. What about politicians who vote for war when "shock and awe' kills hundreds, even thousands, of innocent Iraqis or others (including babies in wombs)? Should they be denied communion?

   5. Besides. it's a very difficult issue. I recall a woman who became pregnant, mother of six already (the rhythm system failed more than once), and her doctor said as the time of delivery approached that it could be choosing between her life or that of the baby. I presume there are those readers who would say the mother shouldn't be given priority. I say, she would be leaving seven motherless children and a devoted husband (plus other loved ones) and she certainly should have first priority. If my position is disapproved by the Church, the Church can take a hike. 

   6. Or, what about the young downs syndrome teenager who was gang-raped? Does she have to bear that baby? Who is going to care for it? 

   7. God (apparently) aborts babies through miscarriages countless times every day. If he were to show up 'in person' at Mass should he be turned away from the Eucharist?

   8. The early Church Fathers held various views as to when an embryo was a baby with a soul. I believe Augustine may have said three months, though I forget precisely. (It's been years since I read Augustine.)

   9. The wise course is to make abortions as rare as possible, which is the goal of most politicians.  It seems especially unfortunate that the church sharply condemns abortion while it also condemns artifical birth control that can help avoid abortions. The vast majority of Catholics, of course, ignore that teaching, and the inability of the church to understand married sex has led to a large exodus from the church. If it weren't for illegal immigrants the Catholic population in the USA would have fallen rapidly. Those leaving seem to divide between disinterest in church altogether or become Protestants - split between mainstream (liberal) and evangelical Protestants. Few evangelicals oppose artificial birth control anymore than they oppose prescribed drugs or vaccinations - also 'artificial' rather than natural methods.

“5. Besides. it’s a very difficult issue. I recall a woman who became pregnant, mother of six already (the rhythm system failed more than once), and her doctor said as the time of delivery approached that it could be choosing between her life or that of the baby. I presume there are those readers who would say the mother shouldn’t be given priority. I say, she would be leaving seven motherless children and a devoted husband (plus other loved ones) and she certainly should have first priority. If my position is disapproved by the Church, the Church can take a hike.”

This is a much used argument that holds little reality. The reality is it is the Doctor in whose hands life or death are held. It is my understanding that according to the Hippocratic Oath, a Dr. is told “First do no harm”. A Doctor would try as much as he could to save both.

1. God (apparently) aborts babies through miscarriages countless times every day. If he were to show up ‘in person’ at Mass should he be turned away from the Eucharist? God cannot and will not be held accountable for happenings such as this. Miscarriages are a natural phenomena and nature’s way of dealing with a process that is not normal8. The early Church Fathers held various views as to when an embryo was a baby with a soul. I believe Augustine may have said three months, though I forget precisely. (It’s been years since I read Augustine.) St. Augustine did not have the medical knowledge available today. Same with the lack of scientific knowledge of the Pope who excommunicated Copernicus when he declared the Sun and not the Earth is the center of the universe.

 

[Joey_13]

I am greatly appeciative that Archbishop Chaput of Denver recently called out Speaker Pelosi by name for her blatant distortion of Catholic teaching on abortion:

catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29005

Do you understand how rare it is for a bishop to be naming individual politicians pubilcly? If vulgarity were permitted here, I might say that at least some of our bishops had finally grown a set.

It was very charitable for the Ordinary of Denver not to allege that the distortion was intentional. I probably would not have been as temperate in his place.

Popularity with the people does not save your soul. So these politicians who think that having support down here because of popularity may not have support up there. I think that I would rather have that upper support.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

these politicians who think that having support down here because of popularity may not have support up there. I think that I would rather have that upper support.

Me too. Any day of the week and twice on Sundays
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[fix]

We have just witnessed a good example of relativism in action.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon ed B

Amen.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim,

The way you stated it is that you feel that it is unfortunate that all induced labors do not end in the killing of a child.

In other words, you seemed to imply that you wished that all induced labors ended up with a dead child.

Of course thats not what I meant and I think you’re stretching to come up with that definition, from what I posted.

Jim