NJ archbishop sets rules for barring Catholics from Communion

[OraLabora]

Any person of any political persuasion, who supports candidates who champion abortion, who champion same sex marriage, who champion embryonic stem cell research should really think twice about presenting themselves for Communion.

Well I guess that means that Catholics in Canada either cannot vote, or cannot receive the sacraments, since no party is against abortion or same-sex marriage.

Good that you bring it up as our general election is next week. I do plan to vote BTW… someone still has to run the place.

What’s the good bishop going to do, request that priests interrogate every Catholic coming up for communion? What if I visit NJ and attend Mass, will the priest ask me

-Are you validly married or a single living chastely? (yes)
-Are you in a state of mortal sin? (did you see me in line at the confessional? No? Then perhaps I didn’t need to confess today)
-Do you support abortion? (no but that battle has been lost in Canada)
-Do you support same-sex marriage (no, but that battle has been lost in Canada)
-Did you vote Democrat? (no, I’m Canadian and can’t vote in the US, and I believe in the concept of a secret ballot so I wouldn’t tell you anyway).

Of course if what the bishop means is that we have to make a good examination of our conscience before we go up for communion, I can agree with that… but that doesn’t mean everyone who does this and is going up is going to be 100% aligned with Church doctrine which would suggest… what’s the point of all this?

Shouldn’t he instead be focusing on evangelizing rather than rule-making? The more people, including nominal Catholics, that become truly Catholic through evangelization and good catechesis, the less need there will be for this kind of message that the media can have a field day with.

 

[shockerfan]

Well I guess that means that Catholics in Canada either cannot vote, or cannot receive the sacraments, since no party is against abortion or same-sex marriage.

There is a difference between a party that is not “against abortion or same sex marriage” and a party that actively supports abortion and same sex marriage. I’m not familiar with Canadian political parties, but the Democratic party in the US actively promotes SSM and abortion rights. So if a person is voting for Democratic candidates, knowing that they will actively support SSM and Abortion rights, then yes, they really need to think hard about presenting themselves for Communion.

What’s the good bishop going to do, request that priests interrogate every Catholic coming up for communion? What if I visit NJ and attend Mass, will the priest ask me

No. A person who actively supports political candidates who advocate, promote, and enable abortion or SSM should themselves review their conscience before presenting themselves for Communion. The only time I can think of where a priest might stop someone from receiving Communion is if they know that person is in an active sinful lifestyle (like SSM) or if they have taken an unrepentant public position advocating for SSM or Abortion rights.

Of course if what the bishop means is that we have to make a good examination of our conscience before we go up for communion, I can agree with that… but that doesn’t mean everyone who does this and is going up is going to be 100% aligned with Church doctrine which would suggest… what’s the point of all this?

Shouldn’t he instead be focusing on evangelizing rather than rule-making? The more people, including nominal Catholics, that become truly Catholic through evangelization and good catechesis, the less need there will be for this kind of message that the media can have a field day with.

The point is to not have people “eat and drink judgment upon themselves” (1 Cor 11:29). Its actually a mission of mercy that the good Bishop is engaged in.

 

[zz912]

The papal encyclical Laudato Si is part of the Church’s social teaching. The Democrat party has no teaching authority whatsoever in the Roman Catholic Church.

No one claimed the DNC has teaching authority in the Catholic Church. What is fact is the DNC actively promotes and opposes Church teaching and doctrine. Supporting such a group, which opposes the Church, makes it virtually impossible to faithfully present themselves for Communion. You cannot support a group opposed to the Church, and then also go up for Communion, where you claim to believe what the Church teaches.

 

[zz912]

Shouldn’t he instead be focusing on evangelizing rather than rule-making? The more people, including nominal Catholics, that become truly Catholic through evangelization and good catechesis, the less need there will be for this kind of message that the media can have a field day with.

This letter IS evangelizing. It is attempting to promote and proclaim Church teaching to the Catholics in the diocese.

 

[zz912]

How could any person possibly know what “absolutely no one” has understood? However, this was hardly the point and has nothing to do with “desperation” and “a need to derail the conversation.” Perhaps the comment wasn’t understood.

The comment was understood. And it was ridiculous and a deflection.

Find ONE person who understood the Archbishop as saying that unmarried people cannot receive the sacraments. Just one.

 

[Ender]

Well I guess that means that Catholics in Canada either cannot vote, or cannot receive the sacraments, since no party is against abortion or same-sex marriage.

I imagine what was meant was that one may not support a person or party who supports intrinsic evils if there is a viable alternative. We may always choose the lesser of two evils. As you said, someone has to govern.

What’s the good bishop going to do, request that priests interrogate every Catholic coming up for communion?

Please, enough of this. Is it really not understood that the concern is not with the individual’s thoughts but with his public actions? It is only if the sin is manifest that it becomes an issue.

Of course if what the bishop means is that we have to make a good examination of our conscience before we go up for communion, I can agree with that…

This is what is required under Canon 916. What the archbishop did was speak to the requirements of Canon 915.

Shouldn’t he instead be focusing on evangelizing rather than rule-making?

If by evangelizing you mean explaining church teaching then that is exactly what he did. These are not his rules; they are church doctrines.

The more people, including nominal Catholics, that become truly Catholic through evangelization and good catechesis, the less need there will be for this kind of message that the media can have a field day with.

More and more the media will have a field day whenever a priest or bishop proclaims a doctrine that is at odds with the social standard du jour.

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

There is a difference between a party that is not “against abortion or same sex marriage” and a party that actively supports abortion and same sex marriage. I’m not familiar with Canadian political parties, but the Democratic party in the US actively promotes SSM and abortion rights. So if a person is voting for Democratic candidates, knowing that they will actively support SSM and Abortion rights, then yes, they really need to think hard about presenting themselves for Communion.

The larger point is that in the U.S. neither the Democrat nor the Republican Party is in full agreement with Catholic teaching either. There are core beliefs of the Republican Party that Catholic teaching opposes, as is reaffirmed in Laudato Si.

What are differences in the political arena have no legitimate standing in the Church. I believe this is why Pope Francis sought to avoid partisan politics in his speech to Congress and throughout his visit to the U.S. It is a minefield and serves only those with a political agenda.

 

[dmar198]

There are core beliefs of the Republican Party that Catholic teaching opposes, as is reaffirmed in Laudato Si.

Can you give an example?

Pope Francis sought to avoid partisan politics in his speech to Congress and throughout his visit to the U.S.

I’ve heard similar things from other people, but I’m not sure that’s really true. He condemned abortion and euthanasia and the death penalty and disregard for the environment. All of those are in some sense political issues. Perhaps your emphasis is on the word “partisan.” I suppose something can be political without being partisan politics, but the only example I can think of is if we restrict the meaning of “partisan politics” to “advocating for Party X.” Pope Francis obviously didn’t advocate for a political party, but he did take a stand on politics. Therefore I think I must be misunderstanding you. Could you please elaborate?

 

[Ender]

The larger point is that in the U.S. neither the Democrat nor the Republican Party is in full agreement with Catholic teaching either. There are core beliefs of the Republican Party that Catholic teaching opposes, as is reaffirmed in Laudato Si.

I am unaware of the beliefs you refer to. Can you identify which ones you mean?

Ender

 

[gracepoole]

Because no one supports torture, and it is not a part of the Republican Party platform. If a political party does support torture, then it would be added to the list.

Sure, sure… Hope God is into word games for the sake of those voting in agreement with those championing “enhanced interrogation.”

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Sure, sure… Hope God is into word games for the sake of those voting in agreement with those championing “enhanced interrogation.”

I think he means it isn’t part of the Party’s platform. Some individuals may support it, some individuals may not. But the Democratic party officially supports these abominations. Catholics of course, can not support them. So you have to ask if the other things they support mitigate their support for killing children and the destruction of marriage.

Abortion and homosexual-“marriage” is in fact part of the official DNC party platform.

democrats.org/party-platform

Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

Freedom to Marry. We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

Torture by any other name isn’t in either party’s official platform.

gop.com/platform/american-exceptionalism/

So what things do you see official in the RNC platform that are as counter-Catholic and evil as the two listed in the DNC platform?

 

[shockerfan]

The larger point is that in the U.S. neither the Democrat nor the Republican Party is in full agreement with Catholic teaching either. There are core beliefs of the Republican Party that Catholic teaching opposes, as is reaffirmed in Laudato Si.

I would agree that there are Republicans who support positions contrary to Church teaching, but I am not aware of planks of the Republican party that contradict Church teaching anywhere to the degree that the Democratic platform does. Are you making a claim that disputing science is on par of support for abortion rights?

What are differences in the political arena have no legitimate standing in the Church. I believe this is why Pope Francis sought to avoid partisan politics in his speech to Congress and throughout his visit to the U.S. It is a minefield and serves only those with a political agenda.

Slavery was once a political difference…should the Church not speak out about slavery?

The idea that support for the death of millions of babies each year is a “difference in the political arena” alone does not hold water. If the differences were purely about issues of prudential judgment then I would agree with you, however, abortion is not an issue of prudential judgment.

 

[Thomas_White]

Can you give an example?

The death penalty, unfettered capitalism, a capitalism that does not serve the people, environmental destruction in the pursuit of profit that impacts on the lives of innocent people and results in illness and premature death. A denial that the Church opposes the core belief of liberalism, which the Church teaches is the Enlightenemnt idea of the freedom and independence to do as one pleases, be it with respect to abortion, SSM or in the economic sphere. It has been pointed out that the only Catholic teaching the Republican Party has supported for many decades has been its opposition to abortion.

dmar198:

I’ve heard similar things from other people, but I’m not sure that’s really true. He condemned abortion and euthanasia and the death penalty and disregard for the environment. All of those are in some sense political issues. Perhaps your emphasis is on the word “partisan.” I suppose something can be political without being partisan politics, but the only example I can think of is if we restrict the meaning of “partisan politics” to “advocating for Party X.” Pope Francis obviously didn’t advocate for a political party, but he did take a stand on politics. Therefore I think I must be misunderstanding you. Could you please elaborate?

Pope Francis spoke of Catholic issues that concern Catholic social teaching in his address to Congress, and he later spoke of the need to transcend the partisan politics among U.S. Catholics. I believe what is confusion is to interpret Catholic teaching itself as concerning “in some sense political issues”. It doesn’t, and Pope Francis has said it is this notion that needs to be transcended. The only stand Pope France took on politics is that it has no standing in Catholic teaching.

I would see criticizing Pope Francis for not specifically using the word ‘abortion’ or the word ‘Christ’, specifically, in his address to Congress, as well as the criticism concerning the Kim Davis case, as ‘partisan’ politics. He is the pope, and as such he does not need to meet the expections of those of a conservative persuasion when he addresses the U.S. Congress. I would think a fair observer would understand why: His very presence as the Supreme Pontiff conveys the appropriate message.

 

[Brendan]

The non-negotiables – that were identified as such by Deal Hudson, not the pontiff.

Here are the ones from Pope Benedict

Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defense from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. These values are not negotiable.

Sacramentum Caritas 83

 

[OraLabora]

This letter IS evangelizing. It is attempting to promote and proclaim Church teaching to the Catholics in the diocese.

It may be splitting hairs but I see it more as catechesis that evangelization. The former speaks to Catholics, the latter to the public at large. My point is that getting true change of opinion of the public at large (and thus the large political parties) requires evangelization. Really. You can’t make people who are, well, not Catholic, adhere to Catholic teaching. If the majority of people aren’t Catholic, it kind of limits one’s political influence on issues dear to Catholics.

While I agree from a strict moral viewpoint we shouldn’t promote a party that actively promotes anti-life issues, ISTM that both US parties do so, as do all Canadian mainstream parties, either implicitly or explicitly. Like your Republicans, our Conservatives promised much, but did little; it was really just targeting a certain electoral demographic, not initiating true change. But let’s be realistic, our non-vote isn’t likely to change the outcome by very much.

Evangelization thus seems to me to be the grass-roots effort necessary to truly influence these issues; when they realize the amount of votes at stake will be when the political parties start to take real notice especially if they realize that power will elude them unless they get our vote. I would also add, seeking alliances with other non-Catholic Christians on some of these key issues is another strategy. Some denominations, and even some Jewish and Muslim sects, are not so far off our own views on things like abortion and end-of-life issues.

Unless we go out and make disciples (and I don’t mean proselytizing…), I doubt we’ll get too far. It really should be our main task: be the good Christians that we need to be in order to attract. To the extent that the bishop is trying to get us to do that I would applaud his efforts, even if I don’t really agree with his methods (I prefer a more positive approach… but that’s the Benedictine in me I guess).

 

[Ender]

The death penalty…

No, “*There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”. *(Cardinal Ratzinger)

unfettered capitalism, a capitalism that does not serve the people,

No one supports unfettered capitalism or capitalism that is harmful. The disagreement is over what constitutes appropriate and necessary fetters…and the church is silent on that point.

environmental destruction in the pursuit of profit that impacts on the lives of innocent people and results in illness and premature death.

Again, there is no support whatever for the destruction of the environment. The disagreements are all about what constitutes necessary and appropriate controls. These are prudential choices about which the church is silent.

A denial that the Church opposes the core belief of liberalism, which the Church teaches is the Enlightenemnt idea of the freedom and independence to do as one pleases, be it with respect to abortion, SSM or in the economic sphere.

I don’t understand this one, but I’m confident there is nothing in either party’s platform that deals with it one way or the other.

It has been pointed out that the only Catholic teaching the Republican Party has supported for many decades has been its opposition to abortion.

Many more things are alleged than are actually true. The thing is, the church leaves prudential choices to the laity; it is only where choices involve intrinsic evils that the church asserts that certain positions are not acceptable. For all the other issues she provides only guidelines (feed the poor, heal the sick…). She does not tell us how to achieve those goals (e.g. raise the minimum wage, support Obamacare).

Ender

 

[Thomas_White]

Many more things are alleged than are actually true. The thing is, the church leaves prudential choices to the laity; it is only where choices involve intrinsic evils that the church asserts that certain positions are not acceptable.Ender

What does ‘intrinsic evil’ mean?

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

No, “*There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”. *(Cardinal Ratzinger)
No one supports unfettered capitalism or capitalism that is harmful. The disagreement is over what constitutes appropriate and necessary fetters…and the church is silent on that point.
Again, there is no support whatever for the destruction of the environment. The disagreements are all about what constitutes necessary and appropriate controls. These are prudential choices about which the church is silent.
I don’t understand this one, but I’m confident there is nothing in either party’s platform that deals with it one way or the other.
Many more things are alleged than are actually true. The thing is, the church leaves prudential choices to the laity; it is only where choices involve intrinsic evils that the church asserts that certain positions are not acceptable. For all the other issues she provides only guidelines (feed the poor, heal the sick…). She does not tell us how to achieve those goals (e.g. raise the minimum wage, support Obamacare).

Ender

Thanks. I posted the links to the DNC and RNC platforms a few posts earlier.

I’d like someone to cite what in either party’s platform explicitly opposes Catholic teaching. I already did so for two cases in the DNC platform (abortion and homosexual marriages).

I see nothing in the RNC that is called out as specifically something we as Catholics must oppose. No mention of unfettered capitalism, environmental destruction, torture, or the like. One may disagree with either party on how best to be stewards of the environment, or how best to formulate the tax code so as to care for the poorest among us, but one cannot hedge on the unabashed, explicit support for specific evils the Church opposes. One might say "I don’t think the RNC platform does enough to regulate capitalism (if that is your goal). But to say that rises to an equal level with “the DNC supports unlimited access to allow a woman for kill her unborn child” isn’t believable, by man nor God, IMO.

It seems so disingenuous to me to play word games, cite anecdotal inidividuals, or anything of the sort when the words in paper are clear for everyone to see.

 

[ARSpade]

Catholic Archbishop basically says he expects his Catholic flock to actually be Catholic.

Interweb predictibly freaks out about the idea that Catholics should be Catholic and turns it into a political discussion. Because yelling about politics is easier than saying, “Maybe if I’m Catholic I should believe Catholic things.”

 

[shockerfan]

What does ‘intrinsic evil’ mean?

An act that is “intrinsically evil” means it is always evil, no matter the circumstance: like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, SSM, Euthanasia

Acts that are not intrinsically evil are the death penalty (although the cases where its allow is very few), war, etc. The CCC can help with this.