Is a pro-choice catholic in a state of grace and allowed to receive the Eucharist?

[Listener]

Pro-choice is not ambiguous at all. It means a pro-choice person believes a woman has the right to murder her unborn child.
Catholicism and pro-choice are not compatible.

No, I don’t agree. Let’s say you have two women named Jane and Joan, and both call themselves pro-choice.

Jane has slept with several different men and has had three abortions. She thinks that abortion is a very good method of back-up birth control.

Joan, on the other hand, is married with six children. She has never recommended abortion to anyone, she has never had an abortion, and she believes that she never could have an abortion. However, she thinks that it won’t do any good to outlaw abortion because women will have them anyway, since God gave them free will.

I believe that these two women are as different as night and day, and the pro-choice Catholics I know are like Joan rather than Jane.

We should pay attention to our own moral problems. It does no good at all to watch a “pro-choice” woman going to Communion and then to imagine that she has to be guilty of a terrible sin.

 

[jmcrae]

Hmmmmmmmmmm… Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not just what the Democrats claim is acceptable behavior? Is not Obama supported via funding from Planned Parenthood? Is it not ‘remote participation in sin’ to vote for such?

It would be if the purpose of voting Democrat were to ensure easy access to abortion.

One could have other reasons for voting Democrat, while at the same time making sure to place candidates for election in one’s own electoral district who are not in favour of abortion, so as to be able to vote for a pro-life candidate.

Remember, it is a sin to vote for a candidate who is in favour of abortion - and this is regardless of which party he is standing for - party policy is changeable.

If you can’t vote for a pro-life candidate, you must vote for the lesser of evils - the candidate who would restrict abortion after a certain term in the womb, or the candidate who would forbid healthy mothers to abort healthy children for reasons of birth control, or for sex selection.

 

[thistle]

No, I don’t agree. Let’s say you have two women named Jane and Joan, and both call themselves pro-choice.

Jane has slept with several different men and has had three abortions. She thinks that abortion is a very good method of back-up birth control.

Joan, on the other hand, is married with six children. She has never recommended abortion to anyone, she has never had an abortion, and she believes that she never could have an abortion. However, she thinks that it won’t do any good to outlaw abortion because women will have them anyway, since God gave them free will.

I believe that these two women are as different as night and day, and the pro-choice Catholics I know are like Joan rather than Jane.

We should pay attention to our own moral problems. It does no good at all to watch a “pro-choice” woman going to Communion and then to imagine that she has to be guilty of a terrible sin.

Pro-choice and Catholicism are incompatible. Being pro-choice is committing a sin of grave matter.
Both the women in your example are the same as far as Church teachings are concerned.
You are right about one thing, though. God gave us free will to accept or reject him and his teachings. In both your examples the women rejected God and his teaching.

 

[JerryZ]

Pro-choice is a very ambiguous term. Maybe someone calls himself/herself pro-choice because of the belief that God gave us a free will and that women will have abortions whether we like it or not.

If someone does not believe that there should be a law against adultery, does that make them pro-adultery, guilty of adultery, and unfit for Communion?

Likewise,** if a Catholic believes in capital punishment**, does that make them guilty of putting a noose around someone’s neck and unfit for Communion?

I am sorry but you are mistaken, a Catholic CAN believe in capital punishment it is NOT a sin.
Not even venial
Capital punishment is not EQUAL to Murder. And if I where to be ordered with the unpleasant task of having to kill a person that had been convicted and condemned, I would only pray for his soul that he repented and accepted his punishment as retribution for his deeds while here on earth.
Why don’t you read about the 2 thieves that were crucified together with Jesus.
One of them accepted that indeed it was JUST that he was being put to death. The other was tempting Jesus to free him from his due reward.

 

[Listener]

The word “pro-choice” is a political term that does not appear at all in the Catholic catechism. You need to cooperate in abortion in some way in order to be guilty of it. Abortion is an act that kills an unborn human being. It is not a thought or an opinion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The word “pro-choice” is a political term that does not appear at all in the Catholic catechism. You need to cooperate in abortion in some way in order to be guilty of it. Abortion is an act that kills an unborn human being. It is not a thought or an opinion.

But voting is an action. And formal cooperation is an action. And there are Catholics who do vote specifically for a candidate because of the candidate’s pro-choice position, and they justify such votes with a false understanding of “the separation of Church and State.”

(They maintain, and that may very well be true, that they are “personally opposed to abortion,” but they vote for candidates who support virtually unlimited access --including to minors-- because they think that killing is fine for others, just not for themselves.)

 

[thistle]

The word “pro-choice” is a political term that does not appear at all in the Catholic catechism. You need to cooperate in abortion in some way in order to be guilty of it. Abortion is an act that kills an unborn human being. It is not a thought or an opinion.

You seem to be missing the point. Being pro-choice means accepting/agreeing that a woman has the right to murder her unborn child. Rejecting the Church teaching that forbids abortion is a sin of grave matter and heresy. You are focussing on the abortion without seemingly realising that rejection of a teaching is a sin (no matter what the teaching is about).

 

[Digitonomy]

You seem to be missing the point. Being pro-choice means accepting/agreeing that a woman has the right to murder her unborn child. Rejecting the Church teaching that forbids abortion is a sin of grave matter and heresy. You are focussing on the abortion without seemingly realising that rejection of a teaching is a sin (no matter what the teaching is about).

I think the distinction that Listener was trying to make was between Jane, a pro-choice person who has no objection at all to abortion and Joan, who does not feel women have a moral right to murder unborn children, but who feels the same about abortion as she does about adultery, divorce, etc. In other words, Joan opposes all of these actions as immoral, yet feels it is better public policy for them to remain legal. Perhaps she never supports pro-choice candidates, because they always support more permissive abortion laws than she agrees with. The Church has said a lot of negative things about those who would support legal abortion, but I’m not sure whether it has addressed this specific segment of the population.

 

[Rence]

Should a catholic not adhere to catholic teaching on the current hot button issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, etc, but personally has not committed such sins ( but believes others are not sinning), can such catholic receive Communion?

What does that mean “not adhere to catholic teaching” to you? You don’t have to agree with the Church on all things, but you do have to be compliant with their rules and laws. If you are compliant with the rules and laws, even the ones you don’t agree with, you can still go to Communion. That’s what several priests have told me, and I’ll go with that. Perhaps you should discuss your views and how you do “not adhere” with your own priest. There is a difference between ‘not adhere’ and 'not agree with, not understand, etc"

 

[GospodiPomiluj]

In other words, Joan opposes all of these actions as immoral, yet feels it is better public policy for them to remain legal.

Why would it be good public policy to keep an immoral law legal? That is bad public policy, and I am quite sure Church teaching would agree.

 

[Digitonomy]

Why would it be good public policy to keep an immoral law legal? That is bad public policy, and I am quite sure Church teaching would agree.

I don’t want to get too far off track, but there could be a number of reasons a person may feel that immoral acts should be legal. A person may feel that rudeness and unkindness are immoral, but feel that such actions should not be criminalized because enforcement would be a nightmare. A person may feel that prostitution is immoral, but feel that the public health benefits of monitoring and testing disease in prostitutes is more important than the minimal decrease in the activity if it were criminalized. A person may feel that use of alcohol, tobacco, or various drugs is immoral, but feel that entangling so many people in the criminal justice system is detrimental to people’s respect for the law and their future actions. A person may feel that gambling is immoral, but feel that the benefits of government revenue and decreased organized crime outweigh whatever symbolic benefit there might be from outlawing it.

Hypothetical Joan may apply one or more of these arguments to justify her view that divorce, abortion, and adultery should remain legal.

 

[pnewton]

I think the distinction that Listener was trying to make was between Jane, a pro-choice person who has no objection at all to abortion and Joan, who does not feel women have a moral right to murder unborn children, but who feels the same about abortion as she does about adultery, divorce, etc.

If we are going to agree with all the Church teaches, then let us make that all. The Catechism clearly teaches that there are different gravities of sin. Having an abortion and performing an abortion is more grave than having an opinion about abortion. Let us look at exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger said in the above quote and I will note something that is assumed, but is not in there.

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law.

Most American citizens will not be permitted a chance to vote for a law permitting abortion. While this may be interpreted by laymen as “voting for a person who votes for…”, that is not the material cooperation that is found in such actions as having an abortion, or actually voting for a laws legalizing abortion. The Catholic Church has never said that voting for a politician that votes for abortion is a mortal sin. To the contrary, the USCCB has said that at times this may even be morally permissible.

I do no understand how any Catholic can vote in such a way, but I think we do a disservice when we go beyond what the Catholic Church actually teaches and makes in more severe, especially when if comes to the Sacraments. As the USCCB has allowed such a one to be in a state of grace, we should not be too quit to criticize one who receives communion in a state of grace.

 

[pnewton]

Both the women in your example are the same as far as Church teachings are concerned.

Not true. The first inccurs excommunication. The latter may be allowable in accordance with the USCCB document, Faithful Citizanship.

 

[thistle]

Not true. The first inccurs excommunication. The latter may be allowable in accordance with the USCCB document, Faithful Citizanship.

The first incurs automatic excommunication if the woman having the abortion knows what she is doing is not only a sin of grave matter but also carries the penalty of excommunication.
The latter also incurs automatic excommunication if the woman knows that rejecting an infallible teaching is not only a sin of grave matter but also heresy and carries the penalty of excommunication.

 

[pnewton]

The first incurs automatic excommunication if the woman having the abortion knows what she is doing is not only a sin of grave matter but also carries the penalty of excommunication.
The latter also incurs automatic excommunication if the woman knows that rejecting an infallible teaching is not only a sin of grave matter but also heresy and carries the penalty of excommunication.

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches. I refer to:

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

• A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism,** if the voter’s intent is to support that position.** In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.*

I know in this partisan political climate there is a temptation to demonize beyond what the Church said. There are those that would love mass excommunications of all Democrats. I have seen it said here that no Democrat should be able to receive communion. However, we need to stick with Church teaching.

 

[thistle]

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches. I refer to:

usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm

• A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism,** if the voter’s intent is to support that position.*** In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

I know in this partisan political climate there is a temptation to demonize beyond what the Church said. There are those that would love mass excommunications of all Democrats. I have seen it said here that no Democrat should be able to receive communion. However, we need to stick with Church teaching.

who is talking about voting. I have no interest in discussing voting. that’s not what the thread title is about.
the thread title is “Is a pro-choice catholic in a state of grace and allowed to receive the Eucharist?”
a pro-choice Catholic cannot be in a state of grace and therefore cannot receive Communion.

 

[pnewton]

who is talking about voting. I have no interest in discussing voting. that’s not what the thread title is about.
the thread title is “Is a pro-choice catholic in a state of grace and allowed to receive the Eucharist?”
a pro-choice Catholic cannot be in a state of grace and therefore cannot receive Communion.

Uh, quite a few of us are. That is the conversation you jumped in on. All that “former/latter” stuff you commented on, the latter part referred to voting. If you wish to be particular, I would also point out that a pro-choice catholic who is not is a state of grace is also not what the thread title is about.

As far as voting, that is just one way of defining this ill-defined thing of “pro-choice.”