Is Father Newman correct?

[w_stewart]

In his letter, Father Newman says:

“Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president,” Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

“Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.”

Link

Is he correct? Does he have any basis?

 

[clmowry]

Yep.

 

[panther]

Not according to the Archdiocese of Charleston, under whose authority Fr. Newman falls.

I went to the St. Mary’s Catholic Church website yesterday to check the story out, and Fr. Newman had a statement that he had been misquoted by the Associated Press. When I went back today to double-check Fr.'s response, his statement was not there, but this was.

It’s a link to the Archdiocese and a formal statement about communion and an individual’s conscience. (I’d quote it here, but I can’t cut and paste from a PDF format.)

 

[Teflon93]

Father Newman is correct. Look up “abortion” in the Catechism. Then look up “scandal”.

Beltway bishops are unfortunately very unwilling to speak truth to power. Thus we have been left with high-profile Catholic political leaders who see fit to scandalize the Church with a wink and a nod from people who are supposed to be guardians of the Church and the Eucharist.

If Father Newman sees someone take the Host and not consume it, he is supposed to literally chase them down and demand they consume it on the spot or get it back, lest they abuse it in some way.

Those who support infanticide and insist upon approaching the Eucharist unworthily commit and compound a mortal sin. All priests are called upon to protect the body and blood of the Lord from such contamination. The problem is typically that the priest cannot always know whom to refuse, a problem which does not exist for Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and other Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion. When a priest administers Communion to such unrepentant infanticide proponents, he scandalizes the Church.

Far fewer Catholics would have voted for the most radical pro-abortion presidential candidate in U.S. history had their priests and bishops taken their responsibilities as seriously as Father Newman.

Here in Charlotte, we are blessed in our cathedral with at least two such men—Father Roux and Bishop Jugis.

May more of their like stand up for the unborn, for the Church, and for the Lord!

 

[steveandersen]

The rub is, is there a plausible pro-life alternative?

The Republicans have been using it as a rallying issue for decades but, after they’ve controlled the government for years, it is still with us. (it was mostly Republican appointees to the court that decided for Roe in the first place.) Some of them are undoubtedly genuine but I often wonder if some are pro-life just for the votes.

A president can do little about it. Even if Roe is overturned it will fall back to the individual states.
The tragedy is that it is politically popular.

The current Supreme Court is loathed to overturn precedent and a constitutional amendment will not pass in the current climate.

I don’t know what to do.
The Democratic notion of reducing the numbers through poverty reduction and education sounds like it may be a start. But I haven’t studied the statistics yet.

 

[sheila0405]

Not according to the Archdiocese of Charleston, under whose authority Fr. Newman falls.

I went to the St. Mary’s Catholic Church website yesterday to check the story out, and Fr. Newman had a statement that he had been misquoted by the Associated Press. When I went back today to double-check Fr.'s response, his statement was not there, but this was.

It’s a link to the Archdiocese and a formal statement about communion and an individual’s conscience. (I’d quote it here, but I can’t cut and paste from a PDF format.)

Here is the pertinent portion of the text as found on the website:

Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

Properly forming one’s conscience involves learning the teachings of the Catholic Church and then lining up one’s thinking and conscience to those teachings. The church’s teachings on abortion are clear. So, I would say that a person’s conscience is NOT “well” formed if the person supports that which is clearly condemned by the Church.

 

[joseph_virgen]

i love this man, this priest, and i really hope he was not misquoted. what he said is pretty self explainatory. one cantidate was for life, one was for death. what is there left to understand?

now, all manner of individuals have to live and die with what they rationalized as Good.

my only hope is knowing that people will say just about anything to get elected. once elected, though, they sometimes see the flicker of Light within the darkness that surrounds them.

 

[promethius]

Properly forming one’s conscience involves learning the teachings of the Catholic Church and then lining up one’s thinking and conscience to those teachings. The church’s teachings on abortion are clear. So, I would say that a person’s conscience is NOT “well” formed if the person supports that which is clearly condemned by the Church.

I wholeheartedly agree. Fr. Newman was entirely correct and brave to say what he did. He did not parse words, he taught exactly what the church does: you may niether engage in mortal evil, nor support it, and partake of the sacraments (excepting reconciliation).

Further, I seem to remember the USCCB announcing before the LAST election that to vote for John Kerry as a pro-infanticide candidate WAS objectively sinful… in other words, this priest is courageous enough to follow one of the church’s specific teachings and, if not to enforce it, to at least inform of it. The biggest shame is that his diocese is failing him in this. I disagree with the Msgr who wrote the response, and there was no call for such a response. The church has always stood on her principles, and refusing to back down no matter what is what has us still here after 2,000 years of teaching God’s hard but loving truth.

 

[clmowry]

The rub is, is there a plausible pro-life alternative?

The Republicans have been using it as a rallying issue for decades but, after they’ve controlled the government for years, it is still with us. (it was mostly Republican appointees to the court that decided for Roe in the first place.) Some of them are undoubtedly genuine but I often wonder if some are pro-life just for the votes.

A president can do little about it. Even if Roe is overturned it will fall back to the individual states.
The tragedy is that it is politically popular.

The current Supreme Court is loathed to overturn precedent and a constitutional amendment will not pass in the current climate.

I don’t know what to do.
The Democratic notion of reducing the numbers through poverty reduction and education sounds like it may be a start. But I haven’t studied the statistics yet.

How can electing a president who will appoint judges sharing his own radical abortion philosophical ilk possibly help?

How can electing folks to the congress and senate who thinks that the federal government should pay for abortions or that parents have no right to know that their children are going to get an abortion possibly help?

What evidence is there that the “Democratic notions” for solutions in education and poverty reduction have ever actually resulted in poverty reduction, better education or a corresponding decrease in the number of abortions?

Putting people into the government that believe that someone has the right to take another human life will never result in making it less likely that another innocent human life will be taken.

Chuck

 

[Marc_Hanna]

Here’s an interesting article regarding the ethics of the US politcal electorial system:

chp.ca/en/news/comm_08-22-2008.html

 

[Teflon93]

The Democratic notion of reducing the numbers through poverty reduction and education sounds like it may be a start. But I haven’t studied the statistics yet.

You need to google the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (which Obama voted against) and the Freedom of Choice Act (which Obama has promised to make the first piece of legislation he signs and will, among other things, force Catholic doctors at Catholic hospitals to perform abortions).

Don’t be deceived by the warm fuzzy talk. Abortion is a moral evil, not an economic one.

 

[Teflon93]

For those who want to know just how misguided Barack “I don’t want my daughter punished with a baby” Obama is, here’s the NRLC’s page on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was intended to prevent the death by neglect of those infants so miraculously fortunate as to have survived abortion attempts.

There is simply no way that Obama’s position is congruent with Christianity. There is no Christ in it.

 

[rwoehmke]

The assumption being that a vote for Obama was a vote for abortion is certainly not accepted by all the Bishops. If the issue were so clear cut one would be driven to believe that every Bishop in the USCCB would be in agreement. They were not. Many a lay person did their best to form their conscience according to the Church’s teaching and obviously many of the 54 percent who voted for Obama did not vote for him in order to support abortion rights. There obviously are people who put abortion in one pan of the scale of justice and who put every other issue, of which there were many in the other, who felt that the many out weighed the one which while weighty did not have infinite weight.

When it comes to fighting abortion, as my grandpa always said,“There is more than one way to skin a cat.” I happen to not believe that the promise of “pie in the sky” by the Republican Candidate was real. It has been about 35 years since Roe v. Wade and there has been plenty of opportunity for that party to strike a death blow at abortion and so far nothing but dribs and dabs have ever been delivered; not even a failed attempt to amend the Constitution.

 

[clmowry]

So lets see even if we put: “not even a failed attempt” on one side of the scale it still beats the hecks out of a promise to make sure folks have the right to kill as many babies as they feel are inconvienient.

Chuck

 

[rwoehmke]

So lets see even if we put: “not even a failed attempt” on one side of the scale it still beats the hecks out of a promise to make sure folks have the right to kill as many babies as they feel are inconvienient.

Chuck

That maybe how you see it, but I do not. To assume that I would support folks right to kill as many babies as are inconvenient is almost incredible. The best and fastest way to make inroads on abortions is to strongly support your local life care system and to pray your Rosary. Roe v. Wade is not going away in the near future and I strongly doubt it would have even if Obama hadn’t won.

 

[Teflon93]

That maybe how you see it, but I do not. To assume that I would support folks right to kill as many babies as are inconvenient is almost incredible. The best and fastest way to make inroads on abortions is to strongly support your local life care system and to pray your Rosary. Roe v. Wade is not going away in the near future and I strongly doubt it would have even if Obama hadn’t won.

Take a look at the Freedom of Choice Act (which Obama has made a priority) and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (which Obama was the lone senator to oppose) and tell us again that he is not committed to infanticide.

You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

[steveandersen]

How can electing a president who will appoint judges sharing his own radical abortion philosophical ilk possibly help?

A. we don’t know who he will appoint and
B. the point I was making is that tragically he is not a “radical”, his views are main stream now.

…What evidence is there that the “Democratic notions” for solutions in education and poverty reduction have ever actually resulted in poverty reduction, better education or a corresponding decrease in the number of abortions?

That is why I said I had to check the facts.

Who gets abortions and for what reasons?

If those can be addressed we may be able to stop it.
Or at least slow it down.

The rate has been dropping since its peek in the early 80s but it is still there. The genie has been let out of the bottle and it is no longer unthinkable to many people.

Ultimately people must be convinced of the moral dimension but until then what are we going to do? The decision to get an abortion is not made in a vacuum. If we can find out what compels someone to consider this we may be able to remove the “reasons”.

My understanding is that most women who have abortions are either in their 20’s or 40’s and have already had children. This kinda breaks the stereotype of the pregnant teenager an suggests to me that there are economic/social issues that come into play.

Putting people into the government that believe that someone has the right to take another human life will never result in making it less likely that another innocent human life will be taken.

We have people in government who do all sorts of things, imprison the innocent, execute the incompetent, wage wars without reason….

No wonder that abortion is no longer unthinkable.

 

[Teflon93]

Laws and customs define what is morally licit and illicit in any society.

One cannot claim to be addressing the objective evil of infanticide by:

1. Specifically prohibiting laws at any level of government which make abortion a crime;
2. Insisting that abortion procurement be subsidized by government, both through healthcare plans and through endowment of abortion providers such as the Orwellian-misnamed Planned Parenthood;
3. Prohibiting those seeking abortion from any information which might lead to their electing not to have one, such as the physical, mental, and spiritual consequences of aborting your child;
4. Claiming that abortion is but “one issue among many” while simultaneously purging pro-life candidates from the political party, making abortion the litmus test for judge nominations, etc.

If you simply refuse to see the objective evil of infanticide, then anytime someone argues for or against abortion replace “abortion” with “slavery”. Slavery is far less evil (note the Bible’s injunctions to the enslaved to obey their masters; you’ll find no such commandments to abort your children) than abortion, but sufficiently evil that even the unformed conscience can grasp it.

The Church must battle this evil everywhere—the Obama administration certainly will not do it. If you buy into the bogus arguments of the fallen-away Catholics like Pelosi, Biden, and Kmiec for whom supporting infanticide is key to political ambition and career advancement, then take a snapshot of the Guttmacher Institute’s abortion statistics in Dec and watch them increase throughout the 4 years of Obama’s first term.

Were it not inappropriate to wager over such horrors, I would bet a sizeable sum that the abortion rate will increase.

And what will you who buy Obama’s propaganda now say then?

 

[cricket88]

I believe that Father Newman is correct, and I applaud him for standing up for the Truth. What disgusts me is that even his own diocese does not back him up, and instead makes him look like a fool in front of his parishoners and the whole world. The Church has clearly spoken out on abortion and on voting for Barack Obama…but after the election when one lone priest is led by God to speak the truth and warn his parishoners on the danger of communion w/o forgiven sins…then he is ridiculed by his own church. Why doesn’t the church stop trying to be politically correct and defend their own priest?!
the letter the Charleston Diocese sent out repudiating what Newman said was very confusing…so now according to the Charleston diocese it is not a sin to do something as long as it is okay with your conscience? So for all those women who are considering abortion, as long as it doesn’t bother your conscience…by all means go ahead. Is this the message the church is now proclaiming? Moral relativism? Becasue that is the picture I got…from the Church. But not from Father Newman. From him I heard the truth…just as I always heard from him during his homilies at Mass every Sunday at St. Mary’s in Greenville.

 

[Teflon93]

I believe that Father Newman is correct, and I applaud him for standing up for the Truth. What disgusts me is that even his own diocese does not back him up, and instead makes him look like a fool in front of his parishoners and the whole world. The Church has clearly spoken out on abortion and on voting for Barack Obama…but after the election when one lone priest is led by God to speak the truth and warn his parishoners on the danger of communion w/o forgiven sins…then he is ridiculed by his own church. Why doesn’t the church stop trying to be politically correct and defend their own priest?!
the letter the Charleston Diocese sent out repudiating what Newman said was very confusing…so now according to the Charleston diocese it is not a sin to do something as long as it is okay with your conscience? So for all those women who are considering abortion, as long as it doesn’t bother your conscience…by all means go ahead. Is this the message the church is now proclaiming? Moral relativism? Becasue that is the picture I got…from the Church. But not from Father Newman. From him I heard the truth…just as I always heard from him during his homilies at Mass every Sunday at St. Mary’s in Greenville.

Well, not so fast—check out this excellent First Things article:

firstthings.com/blog/2008/11/16/what-happened-in-south-carolina/

I think the diocese is trying to finesse the issue under Democrat political pressure. They shouldn’t—this will be front-and-center as Congressional Democrats and Obama try to push through the Freedom of Choice Act which would compel Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions.

The war over the culture of death is coming sooner than anyone thinks. The Church will be better prepared to win it by buckling on the armor right now. No more finesse, nor more PR games.

Fight and win.