Liturgical Ministers

[po18guy]

What I was also thinking. Even though a person may not have contributed to an actual abortion in any substantial manner, this person is directly opposing Church teaching. It is a source of scndal. Does anyone remember what scandal is?

TheLittleLady: It might help to delve anew into the spiritual work of mercy known as admonishing the sinner. And, if actively involved in public Church ministry while directly opposing Church teaching is not at the very least scandalous - if not outright sinful - I do not know what it is.

After all, we are concerned with that person’s salvation, are we not?

 

[Gorgias]

I have assumed from the OP’s question that the EMHC knows the Church teaching and has outright rejected it.

OK, but if she’s still in the process of properly forming her conscience, that doesn’t rise to the level of “mortal sin.”

The person does not have to drive a woman to the abortion clinic to define “support”.

If you’re talking about mortal sin, “support” has to describe an action, not an attitude, doesn’t it, though?

Rejection of the Church teaching is de facto “support” for abortion.

Depends. At the very least, though, this doesn’t mean “mortal sin.”

Open support for a sinful activity should preclude them from the role.

this person is directly opposing Church teaching. It is a source of scndal.

Again, it all depends on what the OP meant by “support”, doesn’t it?

 

[po18guy]

Again, it all depends on what the OP meant by “support”, doesn’t it?

Based on the limited information we have, it appears that others in addition to the OP are also aware of it.

SCANDAL. Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she foresees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired. (Etym. Latin scandalum , stumbling block.)

Abortion is defined as objective evil. Can a member of the Church serve in a very public position (as many activists gravitate toward) without causing scandal? Even to vote for a pro-abortion candidate constitutes mortal sin.

 

[Gorgias]

Abortion is defined as objective evil. Can a member of the Church serve in a very public position (as many activists gravitate toward) without causing scandal? Even to vote for a pro-abortion candidate constitutes mortal sin.

Apples and oranges, though, I think. Even the definition of scandal you provided is framed up in terms of action, not ‘belief’ or ‘thought’. So, again: it comes down to what “support” means, here. Are they openly encouraging folks to get abortions? Are they proselytizing a pro-abortion message? Are they trying to convince folks that the Church’s position is in error? OK… those are actions; they have the possibility of being scandalous.

However, if it’s just that this is where the person’s head is right now, then (again) that doesn’t seem to rise to the level of an action which might be considered scandalous or sinful.

 

[po18guy]

I would not want to argue such a technicaltiy with God. Let’s keep it simple: Does it look good? Is it in conformity with Church teaching? Can it cause confusion?

Are you in favor of this? Are pro-abortion folks in public/prominent positions within the Church a good and desireable thing?

 

[Gorgias]

I do not want to argue a technicaltiy with God. Let’s keep it simple

Well, ‘argue’ it with me, then.

I agree: simple is better. So: is it an action or a viewpoint? If the former, then it can be sinful. If the latter, then you’ll have to provide a rationale of how it raises to the level of “sin”, let alone “mortal sin”!

 

[TheLittleLady]

Even to vote for a pro-abortion candidate constitutes mortal sin.

Only if the reason you vote for them is because of their abortion position.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position
even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that
candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly
grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a
fundamental moral evil.

 

[mdcpensive1]

This person is a Lector at my Church. He says he has formed his conscience based on the USCCB guidelines and will not vote for any candidate that is conservative so that only leaves those who are progressive and who support abortion. He has publically stated this.

My understanding of the faith is such that one cannot form properly one’s conscience based on an act that is intrinsically evil so I think that a parish would need to know about the belief on abortion before granting public liturgical privileges.

 

[KMG]

Ah, the Bernardin “seamless garment” nonsense. The gift that keeps giving.

 

[mdcpensive1]

If it is nonsense to you please elaborate if you can. The seamless garment argument is not operative in many instances.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Take your concerns to your pastor and leave it in his hands.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Yes that can be done but what I am trying to do is gather information to “form my conscience” to know if my course of action has validity. I am gathering the collective wisdom of very smart Catholics who can guide my search for knowledge. Anyone who seeks out an authority like a pastor with such problem should always be prepared with knowledge of the situation. St. Thomas Aquinas always knows both sides of an argument.