Priests Told: Deny Communion to Politicians Who Support Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdgspencer

Guest
see www.independent.ie/irish-news/priests-told-deny-communion-to-tds-who-support-abortion-29051662.html
A senior Vatican Cardinal, an American, weighing in on the Irish abortion debate, has said that in accordance with canon law priests should exclude politicians who support abortion from receiving communion.
For those interested, Cardinal Burke made these remarks, which are reported in the news article linked above, in an article on the abortion situation at www.catholicvoice.ie/features/2013/02/01/to_decriminalise_abortion_is_a_contradiction_of_the_most_fundamental_principle_of_the_legal_system
 
mdgspencer said:
Code: 
 For those interested, Cardinal Burke made these remarks, which are reported in the news article linked above, in an article on the abortion situation at [www.catholicvoice.ie/features/2013/02/01/to_decriminalise_abortion_is_a_contradiction_of_the_most_fundamental_principle_of_the_legal_system](www.catholicvoice.ie/features/2013/02/01/to_decriminalise_abortion_is_a_contradiction_of_the_most_fundamental_principle_of_the_legal_system)
Click to expand...
That article, as far as I can tell, does not identify who is answering the questions. But the homepage of the website indicates that it is Cardinal Burke.
**To decriminalise abortion is a contradiction of the most fundamental principle of the legal system
**
Thursday, 31st January 2013
Click to expand...
His Eminence, Raymond Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, speaks on abortion and on the duty of Catholic politicians in this regard.
Click to expand...
catholicvoice.ie/features/category/news

When Cardinal Burke was Archbishop of St. Louis, did he have a similar policy for his archdiocese? I remember he announced that he would deny communion for John Kerry, who at the time was running for president of the US. However, I am not sure whether he instructed his priests to take similar action.
 
Is it a mortal sin to support abortion? Because, if it is, then I could see the priests as able to easily back up denying Eucharist to someone who supports it (because the priest would know he is in mortal sin).

… Why don’t we just excommunicate them?
 
Mortal sins are:
  1. grave matter
  2. full knowledge
  3. deliberate consent
This breaks the fifth commandment, so it’s definitely a grave matter.
Yes, they know what abortion is and what it does.
And they not only believe in abortion but encourage others to get abortions and support “abortion rights” as well.

I’d say without a doubt that it’s a mortal sin to support abortion.
 
Not ony grave, but also PUBLIC SIN!

Yes to the excommunication.
A PRACTICAL DEFENCE OF THE TRUTH!

👍 👍 👍

May God grant us courage to stand against powerful enemies,
powerful sons of the dark. Amen.

And, of course, HE WILL WIN! 🙂
 
stephe1987 said:
Mortal sins are:
  1. grave matter
  2. full knowledge
  3. deliberate consent
This breaks the fifth commandment, so it’s definitely a grave matter.
Yes, they know what abortion is and what it does.
And they not only believe in abortion but encourage others to get abortions and support “abortion rights” as well.

I’d say without a doubt that it’s a mortal sin to support abortion.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but it seems up for debate. Our Local Bishop here doesn’t forbid Communion to politicians who want to keep abortion legal.

The way I look at it is this. Helping someone get an abortion in any way is a sin that gets you automatically excommunicated. It would include

-Driving someone to an abortion clinic
-Helping a friend learn how to induce an abortion (I personally lost a close friend when I refused to help him do that)
-Even giving directions to an abortion clinic if someone stopped you on the street to ask how to get there

That’s what makes the HHS thing absurd, isn’t it? Catholic employers would financially provide for abortion inducing drugs. If the employees do it themselves with their own income, that’s their thing; but no way should Catholic institutions provide for it. It’s absurd because it would mean they would actually have to excommunicate themselves if they do anything, anything at all, to make it a possibility.

So how is it any different if you vote for laws that help keep abortion going?

I’m sure the Bishops who allow pro-choice politicians to receive Communion have their reasoning. I’m curious as to the rationale. Bishops disagree even with other Bishops on this, evidently, so it’s debatable. Yet, the Vatican itself doesn’t apparently see the need to impose a universal ban, for whatever reason.
 
I think politicians have thought for far too long that they can get away with promoting gay marriage and abortion and for there to be no repercussions in Church
 
I’m curious- in the US context does this include Republican Catholic politicians such as former Governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger (California), Tom Ridge (Pennsyvlania), New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator Lisa Murkowski( who mysteriously seem to get a “free pass” from the Bishops) or just their Democratic counterparts like VP Joe Biden or the late Teddy Kennedy- denial of the Sacrament and possible excommunication is WAY too serious to be left to the vagaries of party politics!

Terry
 
Terry_Washingto said:
I’m curious- in the US context does this include Republican Catholic politicians such as former Governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger (California), Tom Ridge (Pennsyvlania), New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator Lisa Murkowski( who mysteriously seem to get a “free pass” from the Bishops) or just their Democratic counterparts like VP Joe Biden or the late Teddy Kennedy- denial of the Sacrament and possible excommunication is WAY too serious to be left to the vagaries of party politics!

Terry
Click to expand...
That brings up another interesting point. How would priests even enforce this?

Priests have their own parishioners’ faces to remember. Do they need to even know state legislators’ AND their stance on abortion?

Politicians travel around all the time. They might not constantly attend the same parish, so it isn’t enough if only their pastor knows their abortion stances.

Even to get a reliable list of how the politicians voted on abortions seems to be quite a task. I don’t think NARAL or Emily’s List keeps those lists up to date, always and everywhere.

And then we have to factor in Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers and keeping them informed.
 
Should, was the key word mentioned a couple times. How this indeed works out remains to be seen.

I suppose individuals need help changing, I believe to confront and educate is right. How it works for each individual will vary. As it will with who slips through the cracks.
 
Over the last several years I have wondered to myself as to how some politicians can continue to consider themselves Catholic in good standing when their political views and votes have been against the Church’s teachings. The conclusion I have reached is that they think that their role as a senator or governor or other embodies the true meaning of the separation of Church and state. When they are filling their political shoes they act for their constituents and then when they go home they become their “real” selves. Personally, I don’t agree with this concept but I do offer it as an explanation. It is very hard for me to understand how anyone could justify this type of thinking but I am only one person who does not feel that what I think will change this situation.
 
_Abyssinia said:
I think politicians have thought for far too long that they can get away with promoting gay marriage and abortion and for there to be no repercussions in Church
Click to expand...
This! 👍

We do our ‘Politcian Brothers’ no good service by not confronting them with the sin of Public Scandal.
 
mountee said:
Over the last several years I have wondered to myself as to how some politicians can continue to consider themselves Catholic in good standing when their political views and votes have been against the Church’s teachings. The conclusion I have reached is that they think that their role as a senator or governor or other embodies the true meaning of the separation of Church and state. When they are filling their political shoes they act for their constituents and then when they go home they become their “real” selves. Personally, I don’t agree with this concept but I do offer it as an explanation. It is very hard for me to understand how anyone could justify this type of thinking but I am only one person who does not feel that what I think will change this situation.
Click to expand...
Yeah the thing is, we’re never going to get our way on this issue until we can manage to get the majority of Americans to see our side. Only then will politicians be willing to do the non-risky thing and just do what’s right.

Part of it is the media, and frankly I think part of it is because the pro-life side isn’t organised well enough nor do they employ the right political savvy to get their point across. They preach to the choir; they need to preach to the middle.

Abortion needs to be seen as wrong even in secular eyes. It really isn’t a religious issue. We can all agree that killing humans is wrong; nobody can effectively claim that fetuses aren’t living. You have to at least acknowledge the *possibility *of life there, right? So an abortion has the good possibility of taking a human life.

It is the equivalent of me putting on a blindfold, going into a crowd and just shooting. Maybe I kill someone, maybe I don’t. Either way, it’s a reckless act and I deserve to be thrown in prison for it, right? How is abortion any different?

Convincing the middle and the secular people is perfectly doable. There are, believe it or not, atheist pro-lifers. Christopher Hitchens surprisingly had a viewpoint that would agree with ours about human life (only difference is, even though he knew it was wrong, he still supported his wife having an abortion).
 
J_Peterson said:
How does the priest know they didn’t repent before mass?
Click to expand...
Since it is an excommunication due to abortion, I think they would need to have repented before a Bishop or a priest with the right faculties (priests under normal circumstances can’t absolve the sin of aiding an abortion). Perhaps the Ordinary would let the Diocesan priests know.

Then again, I find it hard to imagine a Bishop putting a document out saying “(Name) may now receive Communion.” I’m presuming that the lifting of an excommunication would be treated as a private matter like Confession (I’m open to correction on that) and that publishing a name like that might go against the nature of privacy in the Confessional.

In any case, I think repentance of the politician would be a bigger deal than a simple Confession with any random priest.
 
I totally support this. Denying communion isn’t excommunication. That needs to be clear. As for repentance, it needs to be public as their scandal in support of abortion was public.
 
JMJSHJ said:
I totally support this. Denying communion isn’t excommunication. That needs to be clear. As for repentance, it needs to be public as their scandal in support of abortion was public.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t they be excommunicated though?

Doing anything to help an abortion gets you an automatic excommunication. Why should politicians not be held to that same standard?

I know not everyone would agree, but I’m not sure I understand the consistency in this.
 
PazzoGrande said:
Since it is an excommunication due to abortion, I think they would need to have repented before a Bishop or a priest with the right faculties (priests under normal circumstances can’t absolve the sin of aiding an abortion). Perhaps the Ordinary would let the Diocesan priests know.

Then again, I find it hard to imagine a Bishop putting a document out saying “(Name) may now receive Communion.” I’m presuming that the lifting of an excommunication would be treated as a private matter like Confession (I’m open to correction on that) and that publishing a name like that might go against the nature of privacy in the Confessional.

In any case, I think repentance of the politician would be a bigger deal than a simple Confession with any random priest.
Click to expand...
I would think they couldn’t say that a person went to confession it would be somewhat obvious what was discussed. This just seems to legalistic to me.

ETA: to be clear, I’m not saying they should receive communion, just that it puts too much on the priest. Catholics should know when they shouldn’t receive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top