Priests Told: Deny Communion to Politicians Who Support Abortion

[GaryTaylor]

The sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven. They do excommunicate themselves, they are not excommunicated by the Church per the link.

 

[JMJSHJ]

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.

They should. I honestly don’t see why they shouldn’t but Ed Peters who has forgotten more about Canon Law than what any of us do know, has said otherwise.

The argument is that because politicians aren’t directly involved in a specific abortion then they aren’t culpable though I am sure its more nuanced than that.

 

[Ender]

As to the point about “Why doesn’t the Vatican say something”: the Vatican has. Archbishop Burke is a Vatican official. He is in fact the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura which makes him the highest judge in the court of canon law. He was appointed to that position by BXVI not six months after writing a 45 page document on this exact topic wherein he made the same assertion he made here: politicians who support abortion are to be denied communion.

Nor does this restriction apply only to Democrats. Mayor Giuliani has been told not to receive and Schwarzenegger doesn’t, either because he was told not to or because he has enough sense to recognize its inappropriateness. I don’t know about the others mentioned but given the overwhelming number of Democrats who support abortion it is inevitable that they would be most effected.

The canon law involved here is 915 which states that the sin must be manifest, that is, publicly known. If (e.g.) Nancy Pelosi steps up for communion and the priest doesn’t recognize her he does not fail his responsibility if he gives it to her. He doesn’t need to flip through a book of mug shots to see who he is to exclude. Nor does he need to know the state of her soul at that moment. As someone else has already pointed out, a public sin requires a public retraction; confession alone is not adequate.

Finally, the point was made that we do the people who receive unworthily no service by not confronting them on this issue. How can we think it is somehow to their benefit to allow them to compound sin upon sin by permitting them to repeat this sin each Sunday? *Wherefore it is needful in all respects to be vigilant, for indeed no small punishment is appointed to them that partake unworthily. *(St. John Chrysostom)
Ender

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

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

Quote. It’s way past time to start holding their feet to the, possibly literal eventually, fire.

 

[MSGirl]

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.

Are you sure this is correct? I know of people who confessed their abortion to their parish priest, no Bishop or confessing in public and definitely no talk of excommunication.

I’m curious, if you truly believe it’s murder, then shouldn’t the person committing the murder be held responsible? Would you send the woman and doctor to jail?

 

[Rence]

Shouldn’t they be excommunicated though?.

Excommunicated means that they are no longer able to receive Communion until they reconcile with the Church. It doesn’t mean they’re not Catholic anymore, which means they’re still responsible for their other responsibilities as Catholics, such as attending Mass weekly.

The Church teaches that once a person is Baptized Catholic, they haven an indelible mark on their souls that makes them forever Catholic, no matter what they have done, or what they think. So being ‘excommunicated’ doesn’t mean they’re no longer Catholic because according to the teachings of the Church, that’s not possible.

 

[Rence]

Are you sure this is correct? I know of people who confessed their abortion to their parish priest, no Bishop or confessing in public and definitely no talk of excommunication.

The Bishops have given the parish priests authority to forgive abortion in the confessionals. So you are correct, one can be reconciled with the Church by confession and obtaining abosoution in the confessional. There is no such requirement of confessing in public or having to go directly to the bishop. As for talk of excommunication, it’s unnecessary because abortion incurs an automatic excommunication. Excommunication means that one has done something that has separated them from the Church, and they are unable to receive Communion until they have confessed and obtained absolution.

Keep in mind that Catholics who marry, divorce and remarry (without an annulment) have separated from the Church and can’t receive Communion until they have conformed to the Church’s rules as well. People co-habitating aren’t fit for Communion either, until they have conformed with the Church’s rules. One can’t receive Communion when they are in mortal sin, so of course having an abortion would make one automatically not fit to receive Communion.

 

[BroomWagon]

Are you sure this is correct? I know of people who confessed their abortion to their parish priest, no Bishop or confessing in public and definitely no talk of excommunication.

I’m curious, if you truly believe it’s murder, then shouldn’t the person committing the murder be held responsible? Would you send the woman and doctor to jail?

I think when that question is answered, they generally say “the doctor”.

 

[BroomWagon]

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).

Oh, the pro-life side is not organized? That’s why once again we say that is why 1,500 clinics have been closed??

lifenews.com/2013/01/21/report-1500-abortion-clinics-have-closed-since-1991/

So you are using English grammer I can tell: “organised” for example, so it may be different over there.

Also, clearly, Abortion is just incompatible with the Church, even supporters of Pro-Abortion Candidates.

 

[Rence]

Would you send the woman and doctor to jail?

If something is illegal, all parties involved usually go to jail. If a man on the street can go to jail for trying to arrange time with a prostitute, and if a woman can go to jail for soliciting ‘customers’; and if a drug dealer can go to jail for selling drugs, and a ‘customer’ can go to jail for attempting to buy drugs, then wouldn’t the woman go to jail for procuring an illegal abortion, along with the doctor who performed the procedure?

 

[Brendan]

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

Because it would have been a very public repentance.

This is not an issue of mortal sin. That is only one reason why the Church would deny someone Holy Communion.

The Canon that +Burke speaks of is C. 915

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion

The key word there is ‘manifest’ or well known. The Sacrament of Reconciliation would remove the person sin, but the manifest persistence would be public. As a public act, the repentance is public as well. The politician would have to have indicated that they have changed their public stance in favor of Life.

An example given by Rome is the case of Catholics who have divorced and remarried. Even if they live together chastely, they are to be denied public reception of Holy Communion, if the knowledge of their state is well known.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

 

[rlg94086]

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

Of course it would apply to Republican Catholic politicians who are pro-choice. Why wouldn’t it? Why would you assume that Bishops/Priests would base their decisions on the “vagaries of party politics?”

 

[rlg94086]

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.

Obviously, a Priest or Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister wouldn’t deny communion to someone whom they don’t know. Pretty simple, really.

Now, if they know that the individual is in a persistent state of unconfessed mortal sin, then they should deny them. For Extraordinary Eucharistic Minsters this is pretty rare though, unless they’ve been instructed by their Priest. For example, I could see a case where the individual knew the person presenting themself was a non-Catholic. If I were in such a position, I would deny it…probably give them the non-blessing (I’m not a Priest) touch on the shoulder we give to people who come up with their arms crossed.

 

[rlg94086]

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

The politician can certainly approach the priest after Mass, and let him know that they have repented, received absolution and are no longer supporting pro-choice legislation. The priest can then give them Communion. Once the politician’s change of heart has been made public, the priests will not have to wonder.

 

[Trader]

As to the point about “Why doesn’t the Vatican say something”: the Vatican has. Archbishop Burke is a Vatican official. He is in fact the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura which makes him the highest judge in the court of canon law. He was appointed to that position by BXVI not six months after writing a 45 page document on this exact topic wherein he made the same assertion he made here: politicians who support abortion are to be denied communion.

Nor does this restriction apply only to Democrats. Mayor Giuliani has been told not to receive and Schwarzenegger doesn’t, either because he was told not to or because he has enough sense to recognize its inappropriateness. I don’t know about the others mentioned but given the overwhelming number of Democrats who support abortion it is inevitable that they would be most effected.

The canon law involved here is 915 which states that the sin must be manifest, that is, publicly known. If (e.g.) Nancy Pelosi steps up for communion and the priest doesn’t recognize her he does not fail his responsibility if he gives it to her. He doesn’t need to flip through a book of mug shots to see who he is to exclude. Nor does he need to know the state of her soul at that moment. As someone else has already pointed out, a public sin requires a public retraction; confession alone is not adequate.

Finally, the point was made that we do the people who receive unworthily no service by not confronting them on this issue. How can we think it is somehow to their benefit to allow them to compound sin upon sin by permitting them to repeat this sin each Sunday? *Wherefore it is needful in all respects to be vigilant, for indeed no small punishment is appointed to them that partake unworthily. *(St. John Chrysostom)
Ender

That is an excellent summary, with which I agree in full. This is not a matter of knowing the state of a person’s soul, but of the scandal given when people support conduct that is objectively gravely immoral.

I would also add that a priest who does not take his responsibility to teach the whole faith given to him seriously is also guilty of giving scandal. There are always pastoral concerns involved in wanting to keep a public sinner in a dialogue with the Church, but Cardinal Burke is telling priests that the greater danger exists when they do not deny communion to those who publicly support grave evil.

 

[JMJSHJ]

If something is illegal, all parties involved usually go to jail. If a man on the street can go to jail for trying to arrange time with a prostitute, and if a woman can go to jail for soliciting ‘customers’; and if a drug dealer can go to jail for selling drugs, and a ‘customer’ can go to jail for attempting to buy drugs, then wouldn’t the woman go to jail for procuring an illegal abortion, along with the doctor who performed the procedure?

If abortion became illegal, I would like to think that initially the only people going to jail would be the abortionist not the woman seeking the abortion. My reason for that is because for the most part women have been told that abortion is not killing a person that would reduce the initial culpability of the act. Perhaps some type of counselling would be the only punishment initially.

 

[ProVobis]

Hmmm. Not receiving communion in some Spanish communities is not a big deal. Unlike the English Masses where virtually all receive, maybe a half, if that much, receive at a Spanish Mass. Just my observations.

 

[rlg94086]

Hmmm. Not receiving communion in some Spanish communities is not a big deal. Unlike the English Masses where virtually all receive, maybe a half, if that much, receive at a Spanish Mass. Just my observations.

That’s interesting. Why do you think that is? Do they take Confession and state of grace more serious?

 

[PazzoGrande]

Oh, the pro-life side is not organized? That’s why once again we say that is why 1,500 clinics have been closed??

lifenews.com/2013/01/21/report-1500-abortion-clinics-have-closed-since-1991/

So you are using English grammer I can tell: “organised” for example, so it may be different over there.

Also, clearly, Abortion is just incompatible with the Church, even supporters of Pro-Abortion Candidates.

I didn’t say they’re not organised. I said they’re not organised enough. It’s a winnable argument for us, but I don’t think they’re using politics correctly. They’re preaching to those who already agree; I don’t feel like they’re reaching out to the middle. It’s played out as an issue of the right; it should be played out as an issue of universal consensus. It’s presented as a religious issue; it should be played out as a human rights issue (and as a matter of fact, people of my generation have the absurd belief that it is a human right to be able to get an abortion).

If the middle doesn’t move, then politicians won’t feel the heat. That’s where they need to set the troops. Don’t convert the people who don’t need the converting. Keep them armed with information and informed so they can defend your side, yes. They need to convert the movable middle. That’s where it needs to be more organised.

If the mainstream media were more helpful in this, it could help propel the debate. Look at this gun control issue that’s been going on lately. Gun crimes are nothing new, and the law hasn’t moved much because both sides caused impetus. Yet, it took something big like the Sandy Hook shooting to cause some action. It’s not because people suddenly realised that there’s gun violence (Columbine, the Aurora shooting, the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shootings haven’t been forgotten; and gang shootings happen all the time even though nobody bothers reporting on it anymore), but it’s because the middle is movable on the issue.

Otherwise, the whole thing is going to be like a car whose front wheels go in one direction while the back wheels go another. The car goes nowhere. Shake up the movable middle then strike when the iron is hot. Our side is the more sensible one and we really can win this. That’s how it needs to be more organised.

 

[PazzoGrande]

Are you sure this is correct? I know of people who confessed their abortion to their parish priest, no Bishop or confessing in public and definitely no talk of excommunication.

Yes, I am.

First of all, if you get an abortion, you are excommunicated automatically.
Canon 1398
“A person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication”

And only a Bishop or a priest specifically allowed can lift the excommunication
Canon 1463
“Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.”

catholicdoors.com/faq/qu70.htm
See especially Questions and Answers #3 and #4.

There is a way to go about this; if a post-abortive woman were to talk with a priest, the priest could secretly ask the Bishop for permission to do it, and then the priest could lift the excommunication. It doesn’t need to be public. The Church is always ready to forgive.

I think in the context of this thread, we’ve been talking about a public sign of repentance for abortion in cases with politicians who previously publicly supported it. The case of a private woman is a different issue.