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

[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

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

One wouldn’t know, but unless a PUBLIC figure retracts PUBLIC beliefs that are not in accord with Catholic beliefs PUBLICALLY, I would think/hope the restriction would stand.

 

[Joey_13]

If a quote unquote Catholic politician supports abortion they should be denied communion. Let’s think about this for a moment. Why would they want to be Catholic any longer anyway? If I didn’t believe in everything moral about Christ’s Church then why would I even want the label of Catholic on me. What they don’t get is these laws that were set up for us can not and will not be compromised. Not for me, not for anyone. That is why the Church is still going strong for two thousand years. It wasn’t built on sand. We need our Bishops to stand strong especially in a time of weakness. As Catholics we also need to pray hard for the leaders of our Church. It is great to be humble but it is not great to be weak.

 

[Trader]

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.

 

[LRThunder]

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.

Simple minded, eh?

Sorry, but supporting a public evil like abortion (and it is a public evil) cannot be left up to mere private conscience especially when the politician distorts Catholic teaching and continues to support abortion while claiming to be “Catholic.”

I guess supporting the Nazis back in the '30s and receiving communion all came down to a matter of conscience, right? What about supporting slavery?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Simple minded, eh?

Sorry, but supporting a public evil like abortion (and it is a public evil) cannot be left up to mere private conscience especially when the politician distorts Catholic teaching and continues to support abortion while claiming to be “Catholic.”

I guess supporting the Nazis back in the '30s and receiving communion all came down to a matter of conscience, right? What about supporting slavery?

Good Post. I agree that supporting the “right” to do evil even if you would not do that evil is beyond comprehension. Distorted teaching and preaching by public officials (priests and bishops included) are what have gotten us into this situation in the first place.

 

[rlg94086]

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.

Yeah…we “simple-minded” Catholics actually believe what the Church teaches us - that it isn’t enough to be “personally opposed” to abortion any more than it would have been okay to be “personally opposed” to slavery but allow others to own slaves.

Santino_50:

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.

Apparently, you don’t know your history. Prohibition didn’t last, but it was the law of the land. That is how our government works. The majority of the people passed an Amendment which was proposed by the representatives. Our representatives should vote their consciences. They should not try to please everyone. If their views are not in line with the voters, they won’t get elected.

Santino_50:

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.

So, it’s just you and Jesus? I had to check your profile to see if you’re Catholic, and, sure enough, you say you are. You really should learn your faith. The bishops and pope do have authority through Christ, and it is their duty to exercise that authority. This is how they serve us, the Body of Christ.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Politicians such as the senators from Massachusetts and the Governor of Kansas–faithful Catholics all–are not “Pro-abortion” as the simple-minded claim. This simple minded Catholic knows what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the subject and has made every effort to teach others the same. Many of us simpletons have taken the time and made the effort to know what our faith teaches. They have all made clear their personal opposition to abortion but realize that they serve all Americans, not just the Catholic Church. So I can speak as the Pharisees with my mouth and do as I want. No way.

If a dry Southern Baptist (unlike the Catholic Church personal interpretation is expected in the Protestant groups and if they disagree with their preacher then they just move one to someplace that teaches them what they want to hear) 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 activities illegal, I suspect that most Catholics would object. (many have changed local laws and then there was prohibition)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. (I can only hope that they are not hypocrites and preach and teach what they truly believe as well as be good examples of their beliefs)

The final arbiter of whether any Catholic should refrain from receiving Holy Communion is the individual conscience (sorry miss-interpreted the CCC tell us when we can and cannot receive worthily and without condemnation of our soul). 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. (yes and each of us need to know that God is just and expects us to stand for the faith in all aspects of our lives)

Ministers have no right to judge another person’s conscience. ( ministers have no rights to judge what so ever) Priests, Bishops and the Pope can bind on earth and in heaven.

Abortion opposition is not an optional and personal decision it is a defined evil of the gravest kind.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What we have all witnessed in the last few posts, whether you recognize it or not, is a discussion on the effects of the notion that truth is relative. This is an outcropping of the Protestant teaching that the Bible means whatever the reader believes it means. Relativism leads to the belief that there are few, if any absolute truths. As the individual is his/her own arbiter.

Truth is one, singular and immutable. If it was true 2000 years age, it is true today and will be true 2000 years from now. Truth does not, has not and will not ever change. It it does, it was not true, we were simply wrong on what we believed to be true. We, as Catholics, are very fortunate to have the Magisterium as our official teacher. It is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and as such teaches only truth, which does not change.

Just something to think about for awhile.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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

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.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Simple minded, eh?

Sorry, but supporting a public evil like abortion (and it is a public evil) cannot be left up to mere private conscience especially when the politician distorts Catholic teaching and continues to support abortion while claiming to be “Catholic.”

I guess supporting the Nazis back in the '30s and receiving communion all came down to a matter of conscience, right? What about supporting slavery?

And its language like this that breaks down communication, which only causes people to dig their heels in, rather than be open to our point of view.

The fact is, some of the anti-abortion legislation that many politicians have voted against, was worded such that it would bind doctors to perform the ridiculous, rather than what is medically ethical.

For instance, a law that would’ve mandated that a doctor can not allow a baby to die, when the baby was delivered through medically induced labor, for the mother’s health, but rather, must take extraordinary steps to save the baby, even though medically, he knows its impossible. Many politicians looking at this bill know that leaving this decision up to the doctor, rather than the government, is the right way and votes against it.

Also, the politician who voted for such a bill, did so, not because he agreed with the bill, but knowing it wasn’t going to pass anyway, did so out of political expediency, because his party mandated it.

The fact is, most of these bills concerning abortion are so poorly written, by lawyers, not doctors, that it would cause more harm than good.

Jim

 

[rlg94086]

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.

Jim

While we agree on this, as estesbob points out, majority agreement is not the problem. A Supreme Court ruling that found a right in the Constitution that doesn’t exist is the problem. For example, we could probably get majority agreement on limiting abortion to either the first trimester; or, only in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. Under the current stranglehold of a few poorly decided Supreme Court case, majority will on this means nothing.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

While we agree on this, as estesbob points out, majority agreement is not the problem. A Supreme Court ruling that found a right in the Constitution that doesn’t exist is the problem. For example, we could probably get majority agreement on limiting abortion to either the first trimester; or, only in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. Under the current stranglehold of a few poorly decided Supreme Court case, majority will on this means nothing.

Agreed. Rov V Wade, the USSC legislated from the bench.

But consider if in the future, the court were to overturn Roe V Wade, what would happen? It would merely return the decision back to the states. Would it change abortion? In some areas of the country perhaps, but overall it would not.

The thing is, abortion has been the law for 35 years now. Even Judge Roberts and Alito both stated in their confirmation hearings, the it was established law, and they would not address the issue.

What we should be fighting for, is to stop funding abortion. But there again, the language in the laws get into the slippery slope of preventing a woman from having a necessary medical procedure done, unless she can pay for it herself. With universal health care coming in the future,( I have no doubt about it), it becomes even more necessary to keep the government out of the decision making process of doctors and their patients.

Jim

 

[maggiemay2u]

For instance, a law that would’ve mandated that a doctor can not allow a baby to die, when the baby was delivered through medically induced labor, for the mother’s health, but rather, must take extraordinary steps to save the baby, even though medically, he knows its impossible. Many politicians looking at this bill know that leaving this decision up to the doctor, rather than the government, is the right way and votes against it.

I honestly don’t know where to go with that. I am dumbfounded by the callousness. Which of us can say with certainty, an severely premature baby will not live? I will pray for you.

Also, the politician who voted for such a bill, did so, not because he agreed with the bill, but knowing it wasn’t going to pass anyway, did so out of political expediency, because his party mandated it.

If you read the statements, of the only person to speak against the bill, you will find the individual said he did not want to extend to the born alive aborted child, the rights of a human being.

The fact is, most of these bills concerning abortion are so poorly written, by lawyers, not doctors, that it would cause more harm than good.

To whom? Certainly not the born alive aborted child.

Jim

 

[Ender]

The issue of withholding communion from pro-abortion politicians just might gain some traction in the next few months. Archbishop Burke, the newly named prefect of the supreme tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (essentially the Church’s Supreme Court for canonical law) has already stated that communion must be withheld from such individuals, that it is required by the proper understanding of canon 915.

It was one thing when Burke was merely a brother bishop offering his personal opinion - that opinion was easily dismissed by those bishops not disposed to tangle with politicians. In his new position, however, and given that the pope placed him there after his scholarly paper on this specific issue, ignoring him becomes more problematic.

Now that a pro-abortion Catholic politician has been selected to run on a presidential ticket the bishops will have little choice but to address the issue … if pressed. I intend to press mine.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

maggiemay2u;

I honestly don’t know where to go with that. I am dumbfounded by the callousness. Which of us can say with certainty, an severely premature baby will not live? I will pray for you.

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.

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.

If you read the statements, of the only person to speak against the bill, you will find the individual said he did not want to extend to the born alive aborted child, the rights of a human being.

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.

To whom? Certainly not the born alive aborted child.

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

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

Jim

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

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

???
I presume and hope this is a mis-type
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[JimR-OCDS]

???
I presume and hope this is a mis-type
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

No it was not a mistype. As I stated long ago in my daughter’s case. Her labor was induced, not to kill the child, but to remove it from her womb. It was the safest way for her, at 20 weeks.

Jim

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No it was not a mistype. As I stated long ago in my daughter’s case. Her labor was induced, not to kill the child, but to remove it from her womb. It was the safest way for her, at 20 weeks.

Jim

Jim, the way your statement is worded, it means that every induced labor should be to produce an abortion. You should say fortunately, not unfortunately.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[rlg94086]

Agreed. Rov V Wade, the USSC legislated from the bench.

But consider if in the future, the court were to overturn Roe V Wade, what would happen? It would merely return the decision back to the states. Would it change abortion? In some areas of the country perhaps, but overall it would not.

I already stated that we agree education is an important component to accomplish the following:

• 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

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim, the way your statement is worded, it means that every induced labor should be to produce an abortion. You should say fortunately, not unfortunately.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I think there’s a difference in definitions here.

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

Jim