New York bishops will not deny Communion to pro-abortion politicians

[Abyssinia]

The bishops of New York State will not deny Holy Communion to politicians who support abortion and same-sex marriage, according to Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany.

“Some bishops have done that but not all bishops have done that,” he said. “Quite frankly, there is a disagreement among bishops about using the communion line as a place for a confrontation. And I don’t think that the bishops of New York State feel that’s appropriate.”

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=9536

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The bishops of New York State will not deny Holy Communion to politicians who support abortion and same-sex marriage, according to Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany.

“Some bishops have done that but not all bishops have done that,” he said. “Quite frankly, there is a disagreement among bishops about using the communion line as a place for a confrontation. And I don’t think that the bishops of New York State feel that’s appropriate.”

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=9536

Perhaps they are differentiating between those who actively promote abortion and those who support it - active versus neutral.

 

[Tigg]

Quite frankly, there is a disagreement among bishops…

Disagreement - the most damaging thing to the faith today!

 

[Robertanthony]

Perhaps denying Communion to those politicians who are pro-abortion would have a threefold advantage: prevent a possible sacrilege form happening, make those politicians aware that the Church they claim to belong to does not endorse abortion, might make some change their views, and tell the world that the Catholic Church is firm and intransigeant when it comes to grave matters of morality, and that it won’t give in to the spirit of this world. Church says the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Church’s life, but doesn’t act accordingly to “avoid a confrontation”.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I can absolutely see why any bishop would not choose to use the actual communion line for a confrontation – for lots of reasons having to do with precedent, protocol, and the experience of liturgy for others.

What I think is more universally the issue, and is self-correcting, is for bishops to make sure that their pastors are covering with the faithful what in fact the core teachings are, and what the conditions are for faithful adherence (and sacramental participation). There are plenty of non-politicians who believe that they can create a church, or a body of beliefs, in their own image. I.m.o. that message is still not being delivered (teachings and/or sacramental disposition). And I’m talking here about the signficant issues regarding sexuality, marriage – its conditions & definition, and reproduction/life, that are not ambiguous or a matter of personal discretion.

 

[bearer]

The Lord will judge us by our thoughts, words, and actions. Communion brings us closer to Christ, but it doesn’t absolve mortal sin.

Although I’m disappointed by the Bishops’ decision, I respect it. I will humbly pray that the Holy Spirit guide them.

 

[Rence]

I can absolutely see why any bishop would not choose to use the actual communion line for a confrontation – for lots of reasons having to do with precedent, protocol, and the experience of liturgy for others.
.

I think it will lead other parishioners to sin while they’re consuming the Eucharist. Imagine how some will gloat (I can’t even count how many just here on online forums, imagine right there in Church) at seeing the politician publicly denied Communion right there in the line, which would be sinful and would defile the Eucharist. Or imagine how some will be angered by it, or upset by it. I think it would be way too disruptive to other Catholics trying to pray and put themselves in the right frame of mind, heart and spirit that is due receiving Our Lord. When people go to Communion, they should be focusing on one thing, and it’s not their neighbors in line.

 

[Ender]

1385* Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

*Is is possible that someone cannot know that supporting abortion is a grave sin? Assume a politician was truly unaware of this; it is the bishop’s responsibility to council him so that he fully understands the Church’s position.

After receiving counseling, no one could claim not to be conscious of committing what the Church considers a grave sin, so no matter the individual’s opinion as to whether he has sinned, the bishop would know he had not confessed a grave sin and that he should not present himself for communion.

At this point the sin of unworthily receiving communion is shared by the individual *and the bishop who permits it *as the bishop has the responsibility not to permit this to happen. It is not a question of turning the communion line into a battle ground or of politicizing the Eucharist; it is a question of whether the bishop will meet the obligations laid on him by canon law.

Ender

 

[LemonAndLime]

So we do commit a mortal sin if we say we are pro-abortion?

If so, then its understandable if they’ll be refused communion. If not, then why would it be refused? I’m confused, I thought it could only be denied if the Priest/Bishop was aware they had committed a mortal sin.

 

[Tigg]

I can absolutely see why any bishop would not choose to use the actual communion line for a confrontation – for lots of reasons having to do with precedent, protocol, and the experience of liturgy for others.

**What I think is more universally the issue, and is self-correcting, is for bishops to make sure that their pastors are covering with the faithful what in fact the core teachings are, and what the conditions are for faithful adherence (and sacramental participation). ** There are plenty of non-politicians who believe that they can create a church, or a body of beliefs, in their own image. I.m.o. that message is still not being delivered (teachings and/or sacramental disposition). And I’m talking here about the signficant issues regarding sexuality, marriage – its conditions & definition, and reproduction/life, that are not ambiguous or a matter of personal discretion.

Thank you, my friend, for expanding my horizons and giving me pause.

Of course, as we know, generally the bishops are not catechizing and the politicans can use the Eucharist to lend credence and public respectibility to their own political ends.

What a world, huh!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The majority of Catholic Politicians do not see themselves as “pro-abortion,” but “pro-choice.”

Now, without getting into why the position is flawed, but believing as they do, would not necessarily mean they directly support abortion and being such, do not commit mortal sin.

It may be the angle these Bishops see and why they won’t deny Holy Communion to these politicians.

Jim

 

[Robertanthony]

If it wasn’t for the Real Presence of the Son of God (no less) in the Eucharist, I’d consider all the objections to denying someone Communion who is publicly pro-abortion (who may or not have at some point voted for a law that further liberalized abortion), knowing it’s an abomination to God. I’m not playing holier-than-thou here as I myself haven’t approached Communion in ages because I’m not in good standing with the Church (=God). To me the Eucharist is a treasure to safeguard. This is my opinion and am quite willing to be corrected if my judgement on this matter is not sound.

 

[Elizabeth502]

1385* Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

*Is is possible that someone cannot know that supporting abortion is a grave sin?

Well, it’s not only possible, it’s probable that lots of Catholics regularly attending Mass (and partaking of Communion) believe they can support all kinds of things. I’m discerning this only based on testimony from all kinds of discussion forums (not just CAF, but including CAF).

Thank you, Tigg. I’m wondering when I will see more adult catechetical initiatives, following Benedict’s recent statements on internal evangelization. I’m sure it’s because pastors have their hands full enough as it is. But I do think that there are plenty of well-informed Catholics who could be persuaded into such service if invited and guided by their dioceses.

Rence, and JimR-OCDS, I agree with your points as to expanded possible reasons.

 

[Ender]

The majority of Catholic Politicians do not see themselves as “pro-abortion,” but “pro-choice.”

Now, without getting into why the position is flawed, but believing as they do, would not necessarily mean they directly support abortion and being such, do not commit mortal sin.

Whether or not the individual believes his support for the right to an abortion is or is not immoral is irrelevant. The Church teaches:

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. (USCCB - Faithful Citizenship, 2007)

Now, if a person cannot vote for someone specifically because he is “in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion” without being guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil, is it really much of a stretch to realize that the politician who holds that position is also guilty? His guilt is not erased simply because he refuses to recognize it.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ender;

Whether or not the individual believes his support for the right to an abortion is or is not immoral is irrelevant. The Church teaches:

Oh it is relevant when it comes to whether a person is in the state of mortal sin or not, and why he shouldn’t receive the Eucharist.

I]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.

(USCCB - Faithful Citizenship, 2007)

Bold is mine. Pro-choice Catholic Politicians most often do not see themselves as taking positions “in favor,” of abortion, but seem themselves as remaining neutral on the issue.

Again, I’m not defending their flawed reasoning, only providing a point of view from which the Bishops who refuse to deny them Holy Communion, may be looking at.

I also think that the Bishops know the complexities on legislation in congress and votes aer not as clear cut as it would seem.

Jim

 

[Ender]

Oh it is relevant when it comes to whether a person is in the state of mortal sin or not, and why he shouldn’t receive the Eucharist.

If a person is ignorant that an action is a sin, the action is still a sin although he may not be accountable for it. If he has been told by the bishop that it is a sin, however, then ignorance is no longer an excuse and he is surely culpable. His unwillingness to recognize the nature of his action does not change its nature and once he has been informed of its sinfulness he becomes accountable. Do you really believe that a person who commits murder is guilty of only a venial sin so long as he can convince himself that the murder was justified?

Pro-choice Catholic Politicians most often do not see themselves as taking positions “in favor,” of abortion, but seem themselves as remaining neutral on the issue.

It seems the dodge is to claim they don’t support abortion, that what they support is a woman’s right to choose. It’s not clear why they think supporting the right to commit a grave sin is not itself sinful.

Again, I’m not defending their flawed reasoning, only providing a point of view from which the Bishops who refuse to deny them Holy Communion, may be looking at.

I try to avoid speculating on why bishops behave as they do if only because my speculations are not nearly as benign as yours.

I also think that the Bishops know the complexities on legislation in congress and votes aer not as clear cut as it would seem.

I don’t accept this. It really isn’t all that difficult to recognize the evil inherent in laws permitting, encouraging, or funding abortions. Yes, legislation can be complicated, but the bottom line on most laws leaves little doubt about which of them are moral and which are not.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ender

If a person is ignorant that an action is a sin, the action is still a sin although he may not be accountable for it.

But with ignorance, its not a mortal sin and therefore, that person can still receive Holy Communion.

If he has been told by the bishop that it is a sin, however, then ignorance is no longer an excuse and he is surely culpable.

If he was told that his actions were in fact mortal sins, but continued with them anyway, then there is a case where the person is in a state of mortal sin and should not receive Holy Communion.

However, its probable that what is told is that direct support for abortion is a mortal sin, but being pro-choice politicians aren’t necessarily, supporting abortion directly, they don’t see themselves as commiting mortal sin.

His unwillingness to recognize the nature of his action does not change its nature and once he has been informed of its sinfulness he becomes accountable. Do you really believe that a person who commits murder is guilty of only a venial sin so long as he can convince himself that the murder was justified?

Murder, is clearly understood by everyone, for its written on the hearts of men.

Not so when it comes to abortion. Most people don’t view a pre-viable abortion as murder.

Again, I’m not defending that position, just explaining the realtiy of where people are on the issue.

It seems the dodge is to claim they don’t support abortion, that what they support is a woman’s right to choose. It’s not clear why they think supporting the right to commit a grave sin is not itself sinful.

Well they’re politicians. If abortion was rejected flat out by the populace, so would they be on the same side.

I try to avoid speculating on why bishops behave as they do if only because my speculations are not nearly as benign as yours.

Benign as mine?

Aren’t you speculating?

I don’t accept this. It really isn’t all that difficult to recognize the evil inherent in laws permitting, encouraging, or funding abortions. Yes, legislation can be complicated, but the bottom line on most laws leaves little doubt about which of them are moral and which are not.

Actually it is complicated. Most legislation today has to do with funding on a broad range of issues. To vote no on the funding means watching people suffer. To vote yes, may have some indirect connection to funding abortion.

There is rarely a vote for or against direct abortion funding and there is no legislation being brought up in congress, to outlaw all abortions.

Jim

 

[kenofken]

If the goal really is to prevent sinful people from taking the Eucharist, bishops won’t catch a tenth of one percent of them by blacklisting a few public figures. They’ll need to start demanding signed letters from people’s confessor to prove they’ve been to reconciliation recently. And have their name run through a database to make sure they’re not divorced and remarried without benefit of annulment and have a personal investigator assigned to each one of them to make sure they’re not cheating on their spouses or looking at online porn etc.

You’d probably also have to blacklist anyone who admitted voting for a pro-choice candidate, or volunteered for one, or allowed a yard sign of theirs to be put up or who was found to have any connection at all to the Democratic party. All those folks are arguably taking part in the furtherance of sin and scandal. To catch all these folks, you’ll need a domestic intelligence and informant network that makes North Korea look like a hippie commune.

Alternatively, bishops could just make their teachings clear, call public figures out on it, and give God the benefit of the doubt that He’s smart enough to sort it out at the end.

 

[TMC]

The title of the article could have been just “Bishops” vice NY Bishops, as this is the practice of the vast majority of bishops everywhere, including the Bishop of Rome. Bishops understand that there is a difference between pastoral teaching and political grandstanding.

 

[Robertanthony]

Kenofken, the thread is about political figures who are notoriously pro-abortion, not a witchhunt into anonymous parishioners’ morality.