Priests Told: Deny Communion to Politicians Who Support Abortion

[CMatt25]

It’s funny that in another thread people want Catholics to do more evangelizing and in this one some people want those who don’t follow everything the Church says to be thrown out of the Church. Isn’t it better to let them keep coming to church so others can try to remind them of the Truth. Of course, it may take a while, it may even be a lost cause, but I don’t believe God ever gives up on us.

I agree it’s funny when people want Baptized/Confirmed Catholics who don’t follow everything to be thrown out or not to be identified as Catholic. Such an attitude can drive them further away even to the point where they might stop coming. And if the goal is to truly bring them closer to the faith, it would seem to me counterproductive if they aren’t in the pews.

 

[CMatt25]

This claim does not appear to be accurate.*Actually only those are to be included (annumerandi) as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body (neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt), or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. *(Pius XII - Mystici Corporus Christi)
It seems evident that those who reject basic and infallible teachings of the church have in fact “separated themselves from the unity of the Body.”

Ender

Actually Rence’s “claim” was completely accurate. All she did was to explain who can rightfully be called a Catholic according to Catholic Church teaching so not to confuse people. She did not suggest every Catholic is in 100% full communion. So your objection to her explanation is a moot pt.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I agree it’s funny when people want Baptized/Confirmed Catholics who don’t follow everything to be thrown out or not to be identified as Catholic.

Except that no one is suggesting this but you.

That is hardly what “denying Communion” means, although personally even that action is not something I necessarily favor. The subject of the thread is the news article in question, not “throwing out” Catholics from the Church.

 

[CMatt25]

Except that no one is suggesting this but you.

That is hardly what “denying Communion” means, although personally even that action is not something I necessarily favor. The subject of the thread is the news article in question, not “throwing out” Catholics from the Church.

And Ender objected to Rence’s “claim”.

 

[fix]

If you had bothered to read my earlier post you would see that I am one that said they should be at mass! Maybe you should read before your react.

I did read it.

 

[Ender]

Actually Rence’s “claim” was completely accurate. All she did was to explain who can rightfully be called a Catholic according to Catholic Church teaching so not to confuse people.

If you have a citation from the church saying that everyone who was baptized a Catholic is a Catholic for life regardless of their actions I would like to see it. Otherwise it isn’t clear why you feel free to ignore the statement of Pius XII which would surely seem to qualify as a “Catholic Church teaching.”

This issue, however, is no more relevant to the thread topic than the sex abuse scandal. The question is simple: should someone persisting in manifest grave sin be denied communion? The answer is even simpler - yes. As to why the bishops have in the main not chosen to impose this ban is beyond my understanding.

Ender

 

[Gerry49]

Are those priest who knowingly give Holy Communion to people (polititians etc who support abortion guilty of the sin of ommision? We must answer to God not only for the things that we DO but also for the things that we FAIL TO DO. This not only applies to priests and bishops, but to us all in the things that we fail to do.

 

[ProVobis]

Are those priest who knowingly give Holy Communion to people (polititians etc who support abortion guilty of the sin of ommision?

How so? Isn’t something omitted something we don’t do?

 

[Lucky7]

How so? Isn’t something omitted something we don’t do?

I’m guessing the poster is referring to the sin of not withholding communion/not providing pastoral counsel to the politician.

I thought I read that Church teaching is that a priest is judged twice…as a man and as a priest.

 

[Lucky7]

If you have a citation from the church saying that everyone who was baptized a Catholic is a Catholic for life regardless of their actions I would like to see it. Otherwise it isn’t clear why you feel free to ignore the statement of Pius XII which would surely seem to qualify as a “Catholic Church teaching.”

This issue, however, is no more relevant to the thread topic than the sex abuse scandal. The question is simple: should someone persisting in manifest grave sin be denied communion? The answer is even simpler - yes. As to why the bishops have in the main not chosen to impose this ban is beyond my understanding.
Ender

You and me both. Our Church needs some serious house cleaning on so many fronts.

Serious question: How do we make bishops enforce this? Would it take a mandate from the Pope himself? If so, what are the chances of that happening? And has anything like this ever happened before (the Pope mandating all bishops to do a certain thing)?

 

[Lucky7]

If you have a citation from the church saying that everyone who was baptized a Catholic is a Catholic for life regardless of their actions I would like to see it. Otherwise it isn’t clear** why you feel free to ignore the statement of Pius XII **which would surely seem to qualify as a “Catholic Church teaching.”

This issue, however, is no more relevant to the thread topic than the sex abuse scandal. The question is simple: should someone persisting in manifest grave sin be denied communion? The answer is even simpler - yes. As to why the bishops have in the main not chosen to impose this ban is beyond my understanding.

Ender

Ignore Church teaching? That sounds familiar.

 

[Ender]

Serious question: How do we make bishops enforce this? Would it take a mandate from the Pope himself?

It is clear there is nothing the laity can do. The US bishops are surely all familiar with the explanation given by the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (the highest judicial authority in the church) that they should in fact withhold communion. There is no one higher on the food chain other than the pope who could possibly say anything that would have more force.

If so, what are the chances of that happening?

I am not optimistic.

Ender

 

[Lucky7]

It is clear there is nothing the laity can do. The US bishops are surely all familiar with the explanation given by the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (the highest judicial authority in the church) that they should in fact withhold communion. There is no one higher on the food chain other than the pope who could possibly say anything that would have more force.
I am not optimistic.

Ender

I am assuming you are referring to Cardinal Burke? If so, do you think if he became Pope we could see something from higher up?

I just think this is just awful. If nothing is mandated by the pope, what does that say for the Church? I find it quite scary in fact. Somethign is so terribly off.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Naturally this is sad that this is even an issue.

Pre-V2, Catholics for the most part self-regulated. If they could not support Church teaching, privately and publicly, they refrained from identifying as practicing Catholics. They did not partake of the Eucharist, voluntarily. They totally “got it” that they were not in communion with Rome, and thus for sacramental purposes, were not active Catholics. They would sometimes, or often, or always even, attend Mass, but not receive. When asked directly by others if they were Catholic, they would say, “I have been, but I am not at the moment a practicing one.”

They also generally kept their disagreements with the Church (if that was the reason for not practicing, which sometimes it was), within their private circles of associates. Thus, their families/close friends knew the reasons for their disagreements, but rarely was that proclaimed publicly. Thus, the issue of public scandal was minimized. (I will add that respect for the Church and the office of Pope and clergy were often expressed, along with whatever disagreements were voiced.)

Very different now. Worlds different. Catholics now feel entitled to self-define Catholicism, which was never a teaching of Vatican 2, although many modern Catholics assume it was.

 

[Lucky7]

Naturally this is sad that this is even an issue.

Pre-V2, Catholics for the most part self-regulated. If they could not support Church teaching, privately and publicly, they refrained from identifying as practicing Catholics. They did not partake of the Eucharist, voluntarily. They totally “got it” that they were not in communion with Rome, and thus for sacramental purposes, were not active Catholics. They would sometimes, or often, or always even, attend Mass, but not receive. When asked directly by others if they were Catholic, they would say, “I have been, but I am not at the moment a practicing one.”

They also generally kept their disagreements with the Church (if that was the reason for not practicing, which sometimes it was), within their private circles of associates. Thus, their families/close friends knew the reasons for their disagreements, but rarely was that proclaimed publicly. Thus, the issue of public scandal was minimized. (I will add that respect for the Church and the office of Pope and clergy were often expressed, along with whatever disagreements were voiced.)

Very different now. Worlds different. Catholics now feel entitled to self-define Catholicism, which was never a teaching of Vatican 2, although many modern Catholics assume it was.

Not a teaching of V-2 but all of these issues are post-V2. With all sincerity, what the heck went wrong with V2? How did the Church allow things to go this way and how do we get out of the mess we are in?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Not a teaching of V-2 but all of these issues are post-V2. With all sincerity, what the heck went wrong with V2?

Most of the statements of V2 were broad. The specificity was supposed to be left up to the bishops to apply to their dioceses, yet sufficient translations did not exist (first of all). Second, because some of the statements were broadly idealistic (conceptual), it was difficult to know whether, and to what extent, boundaries were assumed. Even though the “openness” which the Council hailed had nothing to do with doctrine, that openness was misunderstood on the local level to apply to doctrine, and also to apply to a level of independence and autonomy (for local churches and for the individual) that was not declared by the Council.

Lucky7:

How did the Church allow things to go this way

Some of it simply happened on too large a scale (like now!) to rein in, manage, and redirect. Some of it happened slowly, imperceptibly, over time, and did not became apparent until it devolved to the radical degree it has now (in some instances). IOW, that development occurred and picked up speed during the '70’s. By 1980 the Church had new problems: declining vocations & accompanying homosexual subculture within seminaries, and then the clergy sex abuse crisis which further distracted it, legally and on a public relations scale that was obviously pretty severe.

Lucky7:

and how do we get out of the mess we are in?

My personal opinion is that formal correction and clarification from the Vatican is in order. Second, greater oversight of the episcopacy (and of their effective oversight of whatever remaining rogue priests are still not in communion with Rome) would be indicated.

 

[CMatt25]

If you have a citation from the church saying that everyone who was baptized a Catholic is a Catholic for life regardless of their actions I would like to see it.

Since I see none of the Catholics here have provided you with what the Catholic Church cites about Baptized Catholics being Catholics (Other than Rence earlier whose explanation you rejected and I see Elizabeth has appeared to refer to Catholics who are non practicing), if I had a scanner perhaps I could scan and post a letter for you which I have in my hands from a Catholic bishop. I had asked him if a person is a Catholic who was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church but does not attend Mass. Does not believe in transubstantiation. And is pro choice on the abortion issue. And this was his answer:

“You are asking about who can rightfully be called a Catholic. A person becomes a member of the Catholic Church by the Sacrament of Baptism. However, further distinction would be whether one is a practicing or a non-practicing member. And of course being a practicing Catholic does not exclude the possibility of personal sin in one’s life. So that person would still be considered to be Catholic, although perhaps a non-practicing one”.

The issue came up when Rence explained that even excommunicated Catholics are Catholics according to your Church. I however shall not discuss this with you further on this thread about excommunicating Catholic politicians. In any case I hope this helped you and Lucky7.

 

[CMatt25]

It is clear there is nothing the laity can do. The US bishops are surely all familiar with the explanation given by the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (the highest judicial authority in the church) that they should in fact withhold communion. There is no one higher on the food chain other than the pope who could possibly say anything that would have more force.
I am not optimistic.

Ender

If I am I understanding you correctly, true Apostolic successors and shepherds of the flock are ignoring the explanation given them by the highest judicial authority to withhold Communion. If that’s the case and if laity are not above the bishops, then I would have to agree there is nothing the laity in the Church can do. Peace.

 

[Lucky7]

post a letter for you which I have in my hands from a Catholic bishop. I had asked him if a person is a Catholic who was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church but does not attend Mass. Does not believe in transubstantiation. And is pro choice on the abortion issue. And this was his answer:

“You are asking about who can rightfully be called a Catholic. A person becomes a member of the Catholic Church by the Sacrament of Baptism. However, further distinction would be whether one is a practicing or a non-practicing member. And of course being a practicing Catholic does not exclude the possibility of personal sin in one’s life. So that person would still be considered to be Catholic, although perhaps a non-practicing one”.

Per the Catechism:

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.

How a Catholic bishop can say “So that person would still be considered to be Catholic, although perhaps a non-practicing one” is beyond me, but does not surprise me. It’s part of the same problem I keep seeing over and over again.

Which bishop was this (since you have an actual letter from him)?

Because the person you described is a heretic.

 

[CMatt25]

Per the Catechism:

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.

How a Catholic bishop can say “So that person would still be considered to be Catholic, although perhaps a non-practicing one” is beyond me, but does not surprise me. It’s part of the same problem I keep seeing over and over again.

Which bishop was this (since you have an actual letter from him)?

Because the person you described is a heretic.

He has since retired but was not at the time. But I hesitate giving his name on this forum. As I’m not just not big on judging people or throwing the heretic term around. I instead figure I have enough to do with working out my own salvation and with the specks and planks in my own eyes first.