Petition to withohld Holy Communion from Pro-Aborts

[magdelaine]

if being sorry is the answer to receive then Jesus did not have to die on the cross but tell the father how sorry he was for our sins. When a child does wrong like kill his father (on the news) the age of reason kicks in and a spanking has to ensue. Killing a child or saying the church says its okay is even a bigger sin. Palosi is not God and shame on her. Blood was spilled once and for all from Jesus. When people respond with murder then penence has to be done even if it means not receiving communion.

Only priests are in the position to make that determination, not the laity.

 

[wanner47]

It’s really up to them. What I’m saying as at the end of the day, they have made a choice to be part of the Catholic Church and should accept the doctrine that comes with it.
An athiest homosexual on the other hand, may not have anything to do with the Catholic Church but has their doctrine imposed on him or her due to the fact that the Catholic Church is lobbying against gay marriage. If the Catholic Church kept it’s nose in its own business (which is what I was implying) then that homosexual guy could get happily married. The Church wouldn’t have to recognise it, or give him communion, but being not of the Catholic faith, I doubt he’d really loose that much sleep over it. Everybody wins.

Alas the Catholic Church doesn’t see it this way and they decide they have to impose their twisted views on the non-Catholic population.

There are many non-religious reasons for opposing gay “marriage” (see here, for example), so your analogy is completely flawed.

 

[maggiemay2u]

It’s really up to them. What I’m saying as at the end of the day, they have made a choice to be part of the Catholic Church and should accept the doctrine that comes with it.
An athiest homosexual on the other hand, may not have anything to do with the Catholic Church but has their doctrine imposed on him or her due to the fact that the Catholic Church is lobbying against gay marriage. If the Catholic Church kept it’s nose in its own business (which is what I was implying) then that homosexual guy could get happily married. The Church wouldn’t have to recognise it, or give him communion, but being not of the Catholic faith, I doubt he’d really loose that much sleep over it. Everybody wins.

Alas the Catholic Church doesn’t see it this way and they decide they have to impose their twisted views on the non-Catholic population.

So I ask again, if a bunch of atheists or a secular group decries gay “marriage” , abortion, euthanasia, or any other social ill, what does your argument become?

Americans across the board are opposed to unfettered abortion, as they are opposed to euthanasia and a redefinition of marriage. The sad fact for orthodox Catholics is that there are so many name only Catholics who fail to vote in accord with Catholic doctrine.

Back to the issue. You’re correct, the Church DOESN’T tell people how to vote. Politicians get to make their own decisions. They can be Catholics in good standing by following Church teachings or they can be apart from the Church and vote for abortion, euthanasia, or same sex “marriage”.

It’s really not complicated.

 

[AngelAshley]

wanner47 - that article uses the same old flawed ideas. Here’s a few of them:

“state recognition of marriage is not a universal right”

Maybe not marriage in and of itself, but marriage encompasses many rights, which should be fundamental to every couple.

“Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest.”

Yet elderly couples and infertile couples are not restricted from getting married, so this can’t be the only reason…

"The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. "

So we’re saying that it’s OK to have one rule for one and one rule for another simply because in one case it’s rare or difficult to determine, but in the other case we can determine it. (Also I wonder what the statistics would be in the case of how many same sex couples would get married compared to how many elderly couples, and wather it could therefore be considered “rare”?)
Rarity of elderly marriage does not justify exclusion of homosexul marriage on the basis of producing children. Thats discrimination at its finest.

"The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met. "

Adoption

"Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female. "

Lack of understanding of the differences between gender and sex here… even so, we have single parent families, these arent’ illegal. Isn’t a loving homosexual family better for a child than no family at all?

“Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.”

Why should gay couples have to go through this aggrovation to get the rights they should already be entitled to? So it’s costly to the state and society. Gays pay taxes too, do they not?

“If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?”

Polygamy is a whole new argument. As is incest. For example:

• How do an incestuous couples seperate natural family love from romantic love? If they can do so, whats the problem?
• What rights would marriage provide an incestuous couple that they don’t already have, as family members?

“Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.”

We have established already that the purpose of marriage is not procreation. Why should procreation be a prerequisite to rights that couples should have, regardless of children?

Incedentally, have you seen the article in my sig? It goes into far deeper detail into most of these points…

 

[maggiemay2u]

wanner47 - that article uses the same old flawed ideas. Here’s a few of them:

Maybe not marriage in and of itself, but marriage encompasses many rights, which should be fundamental to every couple.

.

My friend, you appear to have confused threads. This forum is dealing with Nancy Pelosi and her views regarding abortion.

 

[wanner47]

AngelAshley, if you want to dissect the article, feel free to open a new thread. But that would take this one off-topic.

My point with that article is that there are many and varied non-religious reasons for opposing same-sex “marriage,” thus your assertion that the Catholic Church is somehow trying to force morality on everyone is ridiculous. (Moreover, other religious denominations like Mormonism and fundamentalist Protestantism also oppose same-sex “marriage”, so it’s not just the big bad Catholic Church, you know.)

 

[MDK]

I agree pro-abortion Catholic should not present themselves for communion.

I don’t think that a petition asking for such a “ruling” or whatever you want to call it, is wise.

The Church operates on it’s own outside of popular opinion, and popular opinion can not play a role in the operation of the Church.

The Church is not a matter of popular opinion as far as doctrine is concerned. However, we all need to pray for our Church leaders. In addition, I agree with asking them to do what is required by Canon Law. Right now, the Bishop really has no choice but to deny to Nancy Pelosi. All the requirements have been met. She has been corrected by the Bishop on proper Church teaching, she now understands Church teaching, and still rejects it. I would like the Bishop to show a little backbone and do what is unpopular in San Francisco, that is to publicly stand for what is right according to the Church that is protected by Christ from teaching error! This is Christ’s own Church, His Body, His Bride. It means a great deal! Nancy has publicly chosen to support public policy that opens the door to abortions and pays for them. She has been corrected in her Catholic understanding, and yet rejects it. Perhaps she should go pick a Church that agrees with her views, like all the Protestants do!

 

[mystified]

Some American bishops have stood up to the pro-aborts and to public opinion and stated clearly that they should not present themselves for Communion. Those who defy these instructions must answer to their own consciences and to God.
The Church is not a majority-vote democracy.

 

[MDK]

Some American bishops have stood up to the pro-aborts and to public opinion and stated clearly that they should not present themselves for Communion. Those who defy these instructions must answer to their own consciences and to God.
The Church is not a majority-vote democracy.

Is “some” enough? I don’t see the petition as an effort of democracy, but to show there are a lot of faithful who ask the Bishops to all do their duties as shepherds. It needs to be uniform and they need to go with Canon Law. Otherwise, it doesn’t work well and is not evenly administered. Why do some in one diocese get no response, while others in another diocese have to answer for thumbing their nose at the Church and still calling themselves Catholic. We have a duty to stand up for the Body of Christ. We all will have to answer for ourselves, whether we follow those Christ sent or not… and whether we become guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord or not.

 

[magdelaine]

Perhaps she should go pick a Church that agrees with her views, like all the Protestants do!

 

[GreenLantern]

I agree pro-abortion Catholic should not present themselves for communion.

I don’t think that a petition asking for such a “ruling” or whatever you want to call it, is wise.

The Church operates on it’s own outside of popular opinion, and popular opinion can not play a role in the operation of the Church.

Agreed.

My personaly opinion is that pro-abortion folk should be barred but that is my opinion. The Church is not a democracy and my opinion is irrelevant and that is as it should be.

 

[JuneBug72]

or they could excommunicate her.

 

[AndyF]

Read the full text of the petition and sign the petition here:

pewsitter.com/petition/

Also should be covered are the other sins just has serious and much more obvious and easier to weed out.

 

[Arclight]

Also should be covered are the other sins just has serious and much more obvious and easier to weed out.

Weed out? Do we need the Inquisition or would denunciation by parishioners be enough?

 

[AndyF]

Arclight:

I’m not against official decisions. All I’m saying if a certain action is called for against a segment of the faithful based on a criteria, then we should be consistent.

None of these people should be able to formulate a valid defense by stating that others who are just has obstinate in their their class of mortal sin are targeted for such treatment.

Andy

 

[Arclight]

Arclight:

I’m not against official decisions. All I’m saying if a certain action is called for against a segment of the faithful based on a criteria, then we should be consistent.

None of these people should be able to formulate a valid defense by stating that others who are just has obstinate in their their class of mortal sin are targeted for such treatment.

Andy

Reread the petition, it doesn’t name names, only “prominent Catholics” (that could be anyone), it identifies an open ended list of offenses. Its not even directed to a dioceses, but to all dioceses. So, with that in mind, who gets to start picking out people for punishment? This smells of a witchhunt.

 

[ClementRome]

WOW! Now I’ve seen it all. Someone (anyone) thinks it is their business to interfere with another’s worship? Don’t even come back with pro-abortionists receiving in an unworthy state, I know the rules. But that is between the person and God or the RCC not someone who decides to declare themself the “communion police”!

I am amazed by the number of threads on this site that are focused on what this one or that one is doing, or how they are doing it, or not doing. Examples? How this person is dressed to attend mass, A Eucharistic Minister refusing communion to a person living with their boy/girlfriend, this parish priest is doing this wrong… the list could go on and on.

Let’s take a look at ourselves! When anyone one person has achieved perfection, then maybe is the time to worry about another, but until then, don’t we have enough work to do at home?

Problem is pelosi is doing PUBLIC scandal. This is not private sin between the person and God. This is public scandal. And thus since it is public it must be dealt with in a public way. Its the bishops job to withhold communion from this woman.

Catholics shouldn’t have to watch our Lord being desecrated when they see public pro-abortion polititians recieving communion. Is it fair to the faithful to let such people continue to do what they do in they’re arrogance?

 

[magdelaine]

Is it fair to the faithful to let such people continue to do what they do in they’re arrogance?

No, it’s not.

I mean, it’s an affront. Why can’t such folks go be Episcopalian?

 

[ClementRome]

Problem is pelosi is doing PUBLIC scandal. This is not private sin between the person and God. This is public scandal. And thus since it is public it must be dealt with in a public way. Its the bishops job to withhold communion from this woman.

Catholics shouldn’t have to watch our Lord being desecrated when they see public pro-abortion politicians receiving communion. Is it fair to the faithful to let such people continue to do what they do in they’re arrogance?

spell check, sry

 

[Qhua]

Can someone point to scripture to say that communion MUST be given by a priest? And when I say “scripture”, I mean the Bible… not some “house rules” of a church.

As far as I know, I could have communion every day, any time, anywhere… I do it to remember the Lord Jesus Christ and my bond to Him. Why do you do it?

I’ll still remember the Lord even if the church crumbles… will you?