Popes Giving Communion To Non-Catholics

[VivienneJ]

Hi, Kag, Neither of them probably now the true teaching of the Church ! Invincible ignorance maybe ?

God Bless
onenow1

Clinton was aware that he wasn’t supposed to, but did it anyway.

cite please.

Clinton and his aides knew, from his attendance at Masses in the USA, that he was not supposed to receive at a Catholic Mass. It seems, from the articles I found that the invitation to communion was vaguely worded and Clinton mistakenly took that as meaning that he could receive communion in South Africa; the priest seems to have been confused by a somewhat vague statement from the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference. In defence of the priest, and knowing the awe which was felt in South Africa at the time for the United States and in particular the leader of the United States, the priest may have wondered how he could deny the leader of the free west communion without sparking an international incident. I was not Catholic at the time, so really don’t remember anything in our press about it, but I did see that the SACBC as well as the Vatican were enquiring into the matter.

 

[john78]

How do you know they have not been to confession in eons? Have you personally been tracking every single pro-abortion Catholic politician?

yes especially the pro- abortion catholic politicians and every politician for that matter. and not only them but now you in particular, ( good thing i didnt have to point out it was just an example and not judgement when i made that reference ) congratulations.

and to just add more fuel to the fire, one can not be pro-abortion and catholic, it would be like claiming to be a Catholic Muslim , or a female claiming to be an ordained Roman Catholic priest.

 

[john78]

Those politicians aren’t allowed to receive Communion either. But there is a big difference between telling someone they are not supposed to receive Communion - which has been clearly articulated to all of the pro-abortion politicians - and publicly turning them away if they choose to present themselves sac religiously for the Sacrament anyway. The guilt is on the politician.

this is where i disagree, if a priest has knowledge that one is either non-catholic, or for this instance i suppose is a politician who is pro abortion, and in turn has been warned as you have stated ( hypothetically this scenerio is now ) and said politician still after the warning goes up to receive, there should be no reason to not refuse to give communion to that person, just because " one does not want to cause a scene " { if that is the reason for not wanting to refuse it does not seem a logical reason }.

Said politican would be the one who started the problem in the first place by not respecting the Churchs’ rules and position on why the Eucharist is important to Christians and Catholics .

 

[kag1982]

yes especially the politicians and not only them but now you in particular, ( good thing i didnt have to point out it was just an example and not judgement when i made that reference ) congratulations.

There are 535 Reps and Senators. You’d be able to recognize every one of them and instantly know their position on abortion. Not to mention a myriad of state officials.

 

[john78]

There are 535 Reps and Senators. You’d be able to recognize every one of them and instantly know their position on abortion. Not to mention a myriad of state officials.

ya well since kevin called me out on the matter i figured i mine as well admit that i do have a list.

 

[kag1982]

ya well since kevin called me out on the matter i figured i mine as well admit that i do have a list.

And you have pictures and could recognize them instantly in public?

 

[WildCatholic]

And you have pictures and could recognize them instantly in public?

Maybe we need wanted posters at mass. We could even encourage lay people to tell on their priests who give communion to the unworthy For a reward of course

 

[Corki]

That’s a gross exageration. Only a handful of Bishops in the US have made statements about this at all. Mine hasn’t.

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

In Soweto, South Africa in 1998, mistakenly, by a priest.

Here is one of the many links I found: nytimes.com/1998/04/07/us/president-took-communion-and-criticism.html

Sounds right because, in the picture, the priest was black.

 

[Catholic4Jesus]

Nancy Pelosi is a “Catholic” who is a pro-choice politician, I heard somebody say recently that Pope Francis gave her Communion at his installation Mass, that doesn’t sound logical to me. Pope Francis would never knowingly give a pro-abort Catholic Communion. I guess he would only give it to her if he didn’t know who she was. But I was just wanting to know. Also, I’ve seen pictures of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI giving Communion to people like Bill Clinton and John Kerry. From what I know, Bill Clinton is not a Catholic, and although John Kerry IS Catholic, but he’s pro-choice and has fought for pro-choice legislation in the United States. If what I said above is true, I am hoping that it was done out of ignorance, aka, the Popes not knowing who those people were. I have no intentions at all whatsoever to attack Pope Francis or Pope Benedict, on the contrary, I am trying to defend them. Nor do I have any intentions of agenda posting, I just want to know if Pope Francis or Pope Benedict knowingly gave Communion to Non-Catholics or Catholics in mortal sin, because that doesn’t sound like something that EITHER of them would do.

God bless

I want to add something. Again, by my OP I had NO intention of bashing the Holy Father. It looked like, in the picture, that the Holy Father was giving Communion to those who shouldn’t receive it. If anything, I could’ve misunderstood it, or it could even possibly be doctored. I couldn’t even live with myself if I would willingly bash any of those Holy Popes or commit rash judgment against them.

 

[otjm]

That’s a gross exageration. Only a handful of Bishops in the US have made statements about this at all. Mine hasn’t.

Unless you are ordained clergy (deacon, or priest) it is unlikely you would know whether or not the bishop had issued a directive to his priests, because it is highly likely such a directive would be private, not public.

 

[larsont7]

St. Paul said that he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgement unto himself. So I ask the question again, why is it our business if another person receives or not?

I’m much less concerned of “himself” (the politician receiving Communion) than the hundreds, or more likely, thousands of faithful Catholics being led astray by that politician. I mean hey, if the “Catholic” Vice President of the most powerful nation in the world can commit the sacrilege of receiving Holy Communion while publically denying certain Truths of the Faith, why can’t everyone else?

That’s why it’s our business, ALL of our business. Public scandal is a serious offense and should not be taken lightly. “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” - Matt 18:6

Taking the extreme example, if Adolf Hitler, assuming he were still alive, went up to Holy Communion, would you think it’d be okay for the priest to give him the Body and Blood of Our Lord? I mean, it’s possible he could have repented of all his evildoings in Confession, right?

 

[kag1982]

I’m much less concerned of “himself” (the politician receiving Communion) than the hundreds, or more likely, thousands of faithful Catholics being led astray by that politician. I mean hey, if the “Catholic” Vice President of the most powerful nation in the world can commit the sacrilege of receiving Holy Communion while publically denying certain Truths of the Faith, why can’t everyone else?

That’s why it’s our business, ALL of our business. Public scandal is a serious offense and should not be taken lightly. “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” - Matt 18:6

Taking the extreme example, if Adolf Hitler, assuming he were still alive, went up to Holy Communion, would you think it’d be okay for the priest to give him the Body and Blood of Our Lord? I mean, it’s possible he could have repented of all his evildoings in Confession, right?

1. The UCCB has made its position on abortion clear. Catholic politicians who support abortion should respectfully recuse themselves from accepting Communion. If they defy this, then they are the ones who must discuss it with God. The priest when giving Communion doesn’t know if the politician has repented and had a sudden change of heart.
2. Public scandal can be avoided if bishops started to adopt Pope Francis’ stance on this issue by not distributing Communion to the laity. So no photo ops…
3. I firmly believe that Pius XI was on the verge of formally excommunicating Hitler and Mussolini before he died in 1939. Due to the heinous nature of their actions, such a declaration would have been well warranted. Whether it was politically wise opens up a whole other can of worms that this thread isn’t about.

 

[Elizium23]

Those politicians aren’t allowed to receive Communion either. But there is a big difference between telling someone they are not supposed to receive Communion - which has been clearly articulated to all of the pro-abortion politicians - and publicly turning them away if they choose to present themselves sac religiously for the Sacrament anyway. The guilt is on the politician.

Canon 915 binds the ministers of Holy Communion, not the communicant. The question is whether we laity are interpreting Canon 915 correctly to apply in such cases? We certainly have some good canon lawyers on our side, but the bishops are the ones to interpret this and many have decided that it does not apply.

 

[englishredrose]

what a load of judgemental stuff this thread is turning out to be. So sad :banghead::yawn::stretcher::crutches::blackeye::ballspin:kpeople:

 

[larsont7]

1. The UCCB has made its position on abortion clear. Catholic politicians who support abortion should respectfully recuse themselves from accepting Communion. If they defy this, then they are the ones who must discuss it with God. The priest when giving Communion doesn’t know if the politician has repented and had a sudden change of heart.

While this may be true with your everyday local politicians, it is not true of high profile positions (i.e. Vice Presidents, Senators, high-ranking Congressmen). I think most any priest would know who these people are, and whether or not they have publically recanted their positions on abortion. Let’s be clear we are not talking about a politician who sins (one caught in adultery, for example). We are talking about a politician who promotes and justifies sins that are in direct opposition to what the Catholic faith teaches.

1. Public scandal can be avoided if bishops started to adopt Pope Francis’ stance on this issue by not distributing Communion to the laity. So no photo ops.

Agreed. Unfortunately, most bishops aren’t doing their jobs.

1. I firmly believe that Pius XI was on the verge of formally excommunicating Hitler and Mussolini before he died in 1939. Due to the heinous nature of their actions, such a declaration would have been well warranted. Whether it was politically wise opens up a whole other can of worms that this thread isn’t about.

The point I was making was that it would’ve been a no-brainer for most priests to refuse Holy Communion to someone like that. Why is it so hard for priests to refuse Communion to politicians who support the mass genocide that is abortion, arguably the most heinous evil of the past century?

 

[april32010]

americamagazine.org/issue/497/article/excommunicating-politicians

In the United States the best known excommunication of a political figure was the action taken on April l6, 1962 by the archbishop of New Orleans, Joseph F. Rummel, against three Catholics who opposed the archbishop’s plan to desegregate the Catholic schools in the archdiocese. The three included Leander Perez, the political boss of both Plaquemine and St. Bernard parishes (counties). In 1953, a year before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation was unconstitutional, Archbishop Rummel issued a pastoral letter that declared “the unacceptability of racial discrimination” in the churches of the archdiocese. The letter set off a decade of turmoil as prominent Catholic politicians began an organized fight against Rummel’s policy. In 1956 Rummel issued another letter to prepare for the eventual desegregation of Catholic schools, which caused even further turmoil, and finally, in March 1962, he announced that at the opening of the new term all Catholic schools would accept all qualified students.

During these years opposition to Rummel had grown ever stronger among Catholic segregationists. Perez, whose reputation for shady deals was almost as strong as his political clout in the two parishes, was among the most notorious. He helped write hundreds of Louisiana’s segregation laws and denounced racial mixing as a Communist plot. After Rummel’s announcement about the schools, Perez called for the withholding of financial support from the church. Rummel sent letters to the most vocal of the segregationists warning them, as canon law required, that they would be excommunicated if they persisted. Most of those who received the warning ceased their activities, but Perez and the two others did not. With that the archbishop excommunicated them and went ahead with his plan. Perez, undaunted, continued to agitate against desegregation and in 1968 was George Wallace’s campaign manager in Louisiana. Shortly before his death on March 19, 1969, he was reconciled to the church and received a Catholic burial.

 

[kag1982]

While this may be true with your everyday local politicians, it is not true of high profile positions (i.e. Vice Presidents, Senators, high-ranking Congressmen). I think most any priest would know who these people are, and whether or not they have publically recanted their positions on abortion. Let’s be clear we are not talking about a politician who sins (one caught in adultery, for example). We are talking about a politician who promotes and justifies sins that are in direct opposition to what the Catholic faith teaches.

Actually a Catholic politician… let’s say Newt Gingrich as an example… who cheats on his wife and is publicly exposed shouldn’t be receiving Communion either.

Agreed. Unfortunately, most bishops aren’t doing their jobs.

The first time I’ve heard of this policy is with Pope Francis. It is a relatively simple solution he has discovered for this problem.

The point I was making was that it would’ve been a no-brainer for most priests to refuse Holy Communion to someone like that. Why is it so hard for priests to refuse Communion to politicians who support the mass genocide that is abortion, arguably the most heinous evil of the past century?

And the point I was making is that it isn’t so much a no brainer. Easier in theory than in practice. How long do you think that a Germany bishop would have lasted if he publicly denied Hitler Communion?? He and his associates would have ended up on the next transport to Auschwitz. This is what Pius XII faced during World War II.

 

[englishredrose]

 

[april32010]

Actually a Catholic politician… let’s say Newt Gingrich as an example… who cheats on his wife and is publicly exposed shouldn’t be receiving Communion either.

and why is that? hes a convert ,these happened before his conversion.