No communion for pro-choice politicians, (Ottawa) archbishop says

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Neil_Anthony

Guest
I’m so proud of our new Archbishop here in Ottawa!! 😃
No communion for pro-choice politicians, archbishop says
Click to expand...
Ottawa’s Catholic archbishop says he will refuse communion to any politician who “obstinately” supports access to abortion, but only if he or she cannot be persuaded to stand down.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=f2150200-36b8-4e30-babf-417d5efcaa9c&k=32889

Thank you God for sending us strong leaders to be our shepherds!
 
I applaud this bishop
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
Its time we send a message to these cafeteria catholic politicians who want to be labeled as “Catholic” but do not follow the precepts of the church.

This is what being “in communion” is.
 
A courageous and holy man. Maybe if more arch bishops would stand up and take this stance, we could get somewhere. Roanoker
 
My only concern about this is that, in a democracy, an MP isn’t in Parliament to represent himself alone. He is voted in by a constituency and is obligated to represent their views in his votes, other than that his opinion is just one in the mix and his opinion should not solely determine the way he votes.

If this means that an MP should then only run for election in pro-life ridings, that’s another question.

These are murky waters, IMO.
 
Jordan_Francis said:
My only concern about this is that, in a democracy, an MP isn’t in Parliament to represent himself alone. He is voted in by a constituency and is obligated to represent their views in his votes, other than that his opinion is just one in the mix and his opinion should not solely determine the way he votes.

If this means that an MP should then only run for election in pro-life ridings, that’s another question.

These are murky waters, IMO.
Click to expand...
I don’t really want to argue, but I spent a lot of today thinking about this problem and came up with a few ideas I’ll offer:
  1. Do politicians really represent everyone in their riding? Or just their own party members? In theory maybe, but if the MP broke his promises because he said it was the will of the majority in his riding, wouldn’t that be wrong? Are they really there to represent the majority of their riding, or are they elected on a platform and expected to do what they said. I think its the latter.
  2. Since when do politicians really do what they electorate wants anyway. That’s theory, not real life. In real life they pick their positions, and we select the one we agree with, then he takes those positions and represents us in the sense that we chose him as someone whose ideas represent our own. Also sometimes MPs will vote with their party… if they really are required to represent their constituents, how could they do that?
  3. Sometimes it’s wrong to represent a person/group/organization, if they’re standing for the wrong things. We can’t justify lying by saying that we’re just representing an employer with dishonest policies, or justify war crimes on the basis that we’re representing a government thats breaking international law as a soldier. We have to take responsibility for our own actions, and represent someone who we agree with.
 
Writing as someone who is imperfect (God knows), I have a few thoughts.

The right to life is the most fundamental right. Yes, compassion needs to be shown to those who were forcibly made pregnant and mothers whose lives are in danger. The best outcome for any group, large or small, or as big as a country, is rule by majority. In the end, decisions need to be made. While aggressive nationalism needs to be avoided, the people who are governed need to feel that the people who govern them do, in fact, represent them. That the actions the government takes not only represent the will of the people but reflect the common good. Embodied in the government is the right to protect the people from threats both internal and external. These threats can come in the form of misguided and categorically evil ideas spread by small groups.

Such groups can stand up and demand rights but the soundness of what they are proposing needs to be examined in light of certain fundamental criteria: the right to life, the right to worship freely, the right to live without undue search and seizure, and public order and security. If radical ideas are popularized that demand the dismantling of commonly held goods, then the government is in a position by virtue of its leadership role, to examine and then reject such things. The great world religions did not spring up recently. The precepts which they follow have existed since antiquity.

In the United States, a statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments is on the Supreme Court building. Secularists have been pushing for a more secular society. And they have very concrete ideas about how to accomplish this. But does it serve the common good? Once again, the government needs to decide with (name removed by moderator)ut from the people. As secularism is popularized in the United States, I think anyone who watches the media can see its effects: a coarse, pagan, and increasingly selfish culture that is knowingly and unknowingly, embracing a society being modeled by secularists who claim it is the way American society should be. Speaking as a Catholic who wants to model his life after Jesus Christ, the secularists want a religiously impotent, free for all society. Everything is OK. They speak as if thousands of years of wisdom, blood, work and sacrifice for certain beliefs and ideals have suddenly been found wanting. They are wrong.

God bless,
Ed
 
idrum677 said:
I applaud this bishop
:clapping: :clapping:
Its time we send a message to these cafeteria catholic politicians who want to be labeled as “Catholic” but do not follow the precepts of the church.

This is what being “in communion” is.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: 👍
 
Perhaps I am being too literal-minded, but I wonder if the article isn’t making more out of the Archbishop’s statement than it really says.
Archbishop Prendergast:
…I have to put the best possible interpretation on my neighbour’s proposition, then speak to him about it, and only then draw the line and say, 'Look, given your stubbornness on this position, I think you should not publicly receive communion until you change your mind.
Click to expand...
My reading of this statement is that he would counsel an abortion-supporting politician not to receive communion. This doesn’t necessarily mean he would turn them away. But maybe I am being too literal.
 
GOD BLESS THE ARCHBISHOP!!!

May all bishops follow his example!
 
Jordan_Francis said:
My only concern about this is that, in a democracy, an MP isn’t in Parliament to represent himself alone. He is voted in by a constituency and is obligated to represent their views in his votes, other than that his opinion is just one in the mix and his opinion should not solely determine the way he votes.

If this means that an MP should then only run for election in pro-life ridings, that’s another question.

These are murky waters, IMO.
Click to expand...
A few thoughts here.

As a catholic, even if a politician’s views aren’t in line with their constituency, they cannot go against the teachings of the church. If the electorate doesn’t agree, they can vote that person out of office. A catholic politician should be worried about being catholic first, and a politician second. Nothing he can do as a politician will gain him salvation. Being catholic on the other hand, will.

Secondly, a true democracy does not exist on this planet. Most so-called democracies are in reality representative republics. A true democracy would have everyone voting on every decision made by a government. What we have instead is a republic where laws are decided by representatives that the people elect. And in electing them, the people choose those representatives that most fit their beliefs. Even then, not everyone has their full beliefs represented in the government, and only the majority that win the election get that voice. So at any given time, in any given place, there are people who have representatives in the government that do not represent their views and ideas. Not every view gets to be represented, and not everyone has a voice in government.

What does this all mean? Catholic politicians must be catholic first, and represent their beliefs as set down by the church. If the electorate doesn’t agree, they can vote them out of office. And as a catholic, the politician must be more concerned about being catholic first and holding office second. If not, they shouldn’t be catholic.

And a catholic politician shouldn’t worry about representing those in his constituency that aren’t pro-life. There are plenty of pro-choice politicians out there. Not everyone in a district gets a voice in government. And not every voice or opinion should be represented. If I believe we should make rape legal, does that mean my voice should be heard just because it is an opinion? Or do we in society have to make decisions about right and wrong, even if not everyone understands that wrong? A catholic knows right and wrong from the teachings of the church, and must represent that first.
 
Jordan_Francis said:
My only concern about this is that, in a democracy, an MP isn’t in Parliament to represent himself alone. He is voted in by a constituency and is obligated to represent their views in his votes, other than that his opinion is just one in the mix and his opinion should not solely determine the way he votes.

If this means that an MP should then only run for election in pro-life ridings, that’s another question.

These are murky waters, IMO.
Click to expand...
and more thoughts:
In the American system a Representative is there to represent the people of his or her constituency. In the Parliamentary system the Member has been elected to exercise his or her best judgment for the good of the country. Canadians commonly say ‘represent’ but he/she is NOT obligated to represent their views, as much as we might wish he/she would. That is why there have been fights over recall and referendum in Canada, but not in the States.

When you say ‘his opinion should not solely determine the way he votes’ you are talking about conscience. His/her conscience should be the only thing that determines his/her vote in a serious matter of morality and the common good. There is always the option of resigning rather than going against one’s conscience - resigning, that is, either from politics, or the Church.
 
Praise be to God that the bishop of Ottawa is standing up against the pro-choice candidates! If only all bishops would do this! I honestly with that Pope Benedict would issue a proclamation saying that no pro-choice politicians are allowed to receive communion. 👍
 
Jordan_Francis said:
My only concern about this is that, in a democracy, an MP isn’t in Parliament to represent himself alone. He is voted in by a constituency and is obligated to represent their views in his votes, other than that his opinion is just one in the mix and his opinion should not solely determine the way he votes.

If this means that an MP should then only run for election in pro-life ridings, that’s another question.

These are murky waters, IMO.
Click to expand...
No matter how, or under what circumstances an MP is elected, he has a responsibility to the people of his Riding to vote in a way that expresses the truth of basic human rights.

Remember, he also representes all the children of the Riding, both in eutero and out, even though they don’t get to vote for him\her.

Would an MP actually be respresenting the unborn of the Riding by voting to all their extermination?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top