Priests Told: Deny Communion to Politicians Who Support Abortion

[LisaA]

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.

I think there is a huge difference between being a non-practicing Catholic and holding heretical positions that are in direct opposition to the Church. If someone doesn’t attend Mass, it is a grave sin but a person who not only doesn’t attend Mass but doesn’t believe in the essential and most significant teaching is REALLY beyond simply “not practicing.”

Of course the person can call themselves a Catholic and I suspect many who self identify as Catholic when asked about political issues are right there with CMatt’s example. How else would the most radical abortion President have received so many “Catholic” votes? OTOH I can go into the garage and call myself a Porsche but saying doesn’t make it so.

Lisa

 

[Ender]

Since I see none of the Catholics here have provided you with what the Catholic Church cites about Baptized Catholics being Catholics…

I assumed that a statement from a pope about what the church teaches on this subject would be sufficient but you appear to disagree with that.

The issue came up when Rence explained that even excommunicated Catholics are Catholics according to your Church.

Rence gave an opinion with which I disagreed and I cited a papal encyclical to support my position. This is why I asked if anyone could cite another document that might offer a different perspective. Failing that I see no reason to believe that Pius XII was mistaken.

Ender

 

[Lucky7]

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**.

I call a spade a spade. If “you” refuse to believe in the major teachings of the Church, then you fit the Church definition of “heretic”. I know it’s not popular to use the correct term (and those of us who use it are then judged for “judging”), but it is what it is. Perhaps when the Church (ie. the Bishops etal) goes back to calling a spade a spade we’ll stop seeing so many “Catholics” that think they have the right to say they can change doctrine (and work to change doctrine) while “remaining” in the Church.

I would also like to add something else Pope Pius XII wrote:

For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man
from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. (Mystici Corporis Christi, 23).

That sounds pretty darn clear to me…from a POPE. He didn’t say that such a man was “non-practicing”.

And while I think it is of utmost importance to care about the future of my Church I also take a lot of time and energy working out my own salvation. But thanks for your veiled judgment anyway.

 

[LisaA]

I call a spade a spade. If “you” refuse to believe in the major teachings of the Church, then you fit the Church definition of “heretic”. I know it’s not popular to use the correct term (and those of us who use it are then judged for “judging”), but it is what it is. Perhaps when the Church (ie. the Bishops etal) goes back to calling a spade a spade we’ll stop seeing so many “Catholics” that think they have the right to say they can change doctrine (and work to change doctrine) while “remaining” in the Church.

I would also like to add something else Pope Pius XII wrote:

For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man
from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. (Mystici Corporis Christi, 23).

That sounds pretty darn clear to me…from a POPE. He didn’t say that such a man was “non-practicing”.

And while I think it is of utmost importance to care about the future of my Church I also take a lot of time and energy working out my own salvation. But thanks for your veiled judgment anyway.

Agree on your points and the need to speak out. Back to the thread, I think that public figures who make heretical statements are PARTICULARLY destructive to the faith. When Nancy Pelosi claims that the issue of abortion “has not been settled” or Joe Biden makes the usual weasel worded “I wouldn’t choose abortion (ha!) but I can’t impose my beliefs on others” or when the Queen of Abortion/Contraception supporter of the late George “The Killer” Tiller claims to be Catholic, they do untold damage and give cover for those who disagree with the Church to claim the high road as well.

Lisa

 

[Lucky7]

I think that public figures who make heretical statements are PARTICULARLY destructive to the faith. When Nancy Pelosi claims that the issue of abortion “has not been settled” or Joe Biden makes the usual weasel worded “I wouldn’t choose abortion (ha!) but I can’t impose my beliefs on others” or when the Queen of Abortion/Contraception supporter of the late George “The Killer” Tiller claims to be Catholic, they do untold damage and give cover for those who disagree with the Church to claim the high road as well.

Lisa

Exactly. But most bishops will not deny communion and certainly will not formally excommunicate. And I keep coming back to …why? It does not compute. And it makes me very uneasy.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Exactly. But most bishops will not deny communion and certainly will not formally excommunicate. And I keep coming back to …why?

I think one reason I addressed earlier: the sacraments have never been (except in rare cases) about external regulation. Prior to Vatican 2, Catholics, and ex-Catholics, and non-practicing Catholics, and Catholics technically so by Baptism, all self-regulated, in the vast majority. And the reason that occurred was several:

(1) respect for authority (almost gone in modern life)
(2) respect for truth as a standard not proceeding privately from every individual
(3) the worst track record of catechesis since the Roman Church began catechizing the faithful. (If you don’t even know what the terms “objective truths” and “moral absolutes” are, you don’t have a steering wheel.)

I think the second reason is that modern Catholic dissent, both from public figures and in the pews, is simply much too common. They’d be denying Communion all over the place. Again, I’m not, and you’re not, talking about repentant sinners who have gone to Confession, but nonrepentant disobedient Catholics. (Wait: “obedience?” What’s that?

 

[gus]

I think one reason I addressed earlier: the sacraments have never been (except in rare cases) about external regulation. Prior to Vatican 2, Catholics, and ex-Catholics, and non-practicing Catholics, and Catholics technically so by Baptism, all self-regulated, in the vast majority. And the reason that occurred was several:

(1) respect for authority (almost gone in modern life)
(2) respect for truth as a standard not proceeding privately from every individual
(3) the worst track record of catechesis since the Roman Church began catechizing the faithful. (If you don’t even know what the terms “objective truths” and “moral absolutes” are, you don’t have a steering wheel.)

I think the second reason is that modern Catholic dissent, both from public figures and in the pews, is simply much too common. They’d be denying Communion all over the place. Again, I’m not, and you’re not, talking about repentant sinners who have gone to Confession, but nonrepentant disobedient Catholics. (Wait: “obedience?” What’s that?

Isn’t a person who publicly supports abortion in grave sin.
Denying such a person is for their protection.
Yes in years past Catholics understood the should not receive. Either we Catholics have grown more holy or our belief in the real presence has waned.
By denying very public sinners it could be learning experience for all Catholics
Its not a political issue. Unfortunaly elements of our church
want to use it as such.
The role of the Bishop is to sheperd and correct error were it is found. We erroneously view this a punitive
Salvation is not attainable without repentence. Repentence is not attainable without charity.
Denying the sacrements should be viewed as an act of charity.

 

[gus]

Chesteron quote is:
“Those who believe nothing will believe anything.”

 

[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

And I would add the following quote from Pope Pius XII (Mystici Corporis Christi, 23):

“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man
from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

 

[CMatt25]

I think there is a huge difference between being a non-practicing Catholic and holding heretical positions that are in direct opposition to the Church. If someone doesn’t attend Mass, it is a grave sin but a person who not only doesn’t attend Mass but doesn’t believe in the essential and most significant teaching is REALLY beyond simply “not practicing.”

Of course the person can call themselves a Catholic and I suspect many who self identify as Catholic when asked about political issues are right there with CMatt’s example. How else would the most radical abortion President have received so many “Catholic” votes? OTOH I can go into the garage and call myself a Porsche but saying doesn’t make it so.

Lisa

You could but you weren’t baptized a Porsche.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Isn’t a person who publicly supports abortion in grave sin.
Denying such a person is for their protection.
Yes in years past Catholics understood the should not receive. Either we Catholics have grown more holy or our belief in the real presence has waned.
By denying very public sinners it could be learning experience for all Catholics
Its not a political issue. Unfortunaly elements of our church
want to use it as such.
The role of the Bishop is to sheperd and correct error were it is found. We erroneously view this a punitive
Salvation is not attainable without repentence. Repentence is not attainable without charity.
Denying the sacrements should be viewed as an act of charity.

Hi, Gus. I was merely trying to give a practical answer, based on realism, to another poster who inquired why it doesn’t happen more. That’s all. One can be technically right about a lot of things, but those in charge may not take action for a variety of reasons.

 

[livingwordunity]

How does the priest know they didn’t repent before mass?

Shouldn’t a politician who publicly holds a position that scandalizes the Church also be required to make his repentance public for those who were scandalized? What good would it do for those who are scandalized if the politician secretly repents while the public continues to believe that he supports so-called “abortion rights”? If a politician were to make their repentance publicly known it would be in the news, and the priest would have heard about it.

 

[Lucky7]

**Shouldn’t a politician who publicly holds a position that scandalizes the Church also be required to make his repentance public for those who were scandalized? **What good would it do for those who are scandalized if the politician secretly repents while the public continues to believe that he supports so-called “abortion rights”? In other words, it seems like if the priest didn’t hear about it in the news then I think it’s reasonable to assume that they didn’t change their position.

Canon Law requires it. And if Ted Kennedy (as an example) repented prior to his death, he should have repented publically as well. It wouldn’t have been difficult to do.

But it appears that I am expecting too much.

 

[april32010]

are you a canon lawyer ?

 

[Lucky7]

are you a canon lawyer ?

No, I read about it. I have been in so many places I couldn’t tell you where but I think you can google it…perhaps the Vatican website?

 

[Lucky7]

I can’t seem to locate the actual canon #, but I did find this from an article:

Arbp. Burke continued, “When a person has publicly espoused and cooperated in gravely sinful acts, leading many into confusion and error about fundamental questions of respect for human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, his repentance of such actions must also be public.”

 

[Ender]

I can’t seem to locate the actual canon #, but I did find this from an article:

Arbp. Burke continued, “When a person has publicly espoused and cooperated in gravely sinful acts, leading many into confusion and error about fundamental questions of respect for human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, his repentance of such actions must also be public.”

This is Archbishop Burke’s document on Canon 915 and the *obligation *of the minister of communion to deny communion to anyone meeting its criteria - which unarguably includes all politicians who publicly support abortion.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

This comment on public penance for public sins is from the Catechism of Trent:
*But with regard to public sinners, as we have already said, they were never absolved until they had performed public penance. *
Ender

 

[brierpatch1974]

I would think any Bishop who refuses to deny communion to any one openly denying the Church teachings is also to be removed from their postition until they see their own wrong doing and move to correct it. It all starts at the top and works its way down. Priest need to be told to enforce the rules and if they refuse then remove them from office until they come back to the true faith as well. It is obvious by their actions that they are not following the directions of the Church. Lead by example and please keep politics out of it. Sadly politics and popular wants and beliefs are being tolerated and are setting bad examples and ignoring the true teachings of the Church. Church leaders, by being lax in rules, are failing the members of the Church. How can you expect the sheep to follow when the sheppards don’t lead.