Pro-choice politicians take communion at Yankee Stadium

[BartBurk]

Robert Novak’s column about communion and abortion:

townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/04/28/disobeying_the_pope

This is actually disturbing to me. Why do these Bishops get away with this?

 

[Newbie2]

 

[sertelt]

Novak: Blame Catholic Leaders Not Pope Abortion-Communion

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – In a new editorial today, syndicated columnist Bob Novak says Catholic leaders in the United States are to blame for pro-abortion lawmakers taking communion during a mass with Pope Benedict. He says the Catholic officials abdicated their duty, as the Pope has previously indicated, to monitor their flock.

lifenews.com/nat3899.html

New York Cardinal Egan Upset Pro-Abortion Rudy Giuliani Took Communion

New York, NY (LifeNews.com) – The head of the Catholic Archdiocese of New York said on Monday he’s upset that pro-abortion former mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani took communion during a mass held by Pope Benedict during his visit.

lifenews.com/state3173.html

 

[bengal_fan]

Robert Novak’s column about communion and abortion:

townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/04/28/disobeying_the_pope

guess what… you have no idea what was in their hearts at the time of them taking communion. i would say stop trying to assume. even if they continue in their sin afterwards. they might have been to confession. they might have made a perfect contrition. bottom line…you don’t know.

This is actually disturbing to me. Why do these Bishops get away with this?

i thought they were the apostles’ successors? i also didn’t hear the pope say anything about it in the moment. are you telling me he doesn’t know who rudy gulliani is? no one told him, “hey, there is a politician who was running for president earlier this year who is catholic and pro-choice.”? if they had (which seems pretty likely), you are indicting the pope by your statement.

 

[urban-hermit]

guess what… you have no idea what was in their hearts at the time of them taking communion. i would say stop trying to assume. even if they continue in their sin afterwards. they might have been to confession. they might have made a perfect contrition. bottom line…you don’t know.

guess what? It doesn’t matter what was in their heart. Objectively, if you look at the guidelines, they should still be denied communion for their public support of mass murder. Whether they feel good about it or not is irrelevant in this instance. Look at the documents yourself and see if you can find ANYWHERE that says what is “in their hearts” is a factor.

If they made a perfect contrition, they would have stopped supporting mass murder. Bottom line - they haven’t.

 

[urban-hermit]

i thought they were the apostles’ successors? i also didn’t hear the pope say anything about it in the moment. are you telling me he doesn’t know who rudy gulliani is? no one told him, “hey, there is a politician who was running for president earlier this year who is catholic and pro-choice.”? if they had (which seems pretty likely), you are indicting the pope by your statement.

As stated in the article, the Pope respects the authority of the bishop of the diocese he visits. The Pope, again, as stated in the article, has made himself abundantly clear on this issue, but even so he does not micro-manage every parish in his billion-member flock. The Pope generally relies on his brother bishops to do what is difficult but correct and obligatory on this issue in their respective dioceses. To be blunt, the bishop has to pull his weight and do his job and not wait for it to get so out of hand that the Pope has to do it for him.

To his credit, Cardinal Egan of New York did this:
lifenews.com/state3173.html

Nobody seems to know what is going on in his excellency Archbishop Wuerl’s diocese of Washington, DC. Are we allowed to ask? Maybe we could get together and write an open letter asking for clarification. Oh that’s right, I heard Judie Brown already did that…

According to the link above, Archbishop Wuerl’s response (from one year ago) is that he will “teach”. Perhaps this means he is meeting privately with the offending politicians and offering them catechism lessons which they continue to laugh at scornfully as if they know better.

Meanwhile, these Pelosis and Kennedys and Kerrys are receiving Holy Communion as a public sign of their solidarity with Christ and His teachings. Nobody is forcing them to go up for communion - they could simply remain in their pew at that time, but they do not. The public scandal continues to worsen and many Catholics are getting the wrong idea - as evidenced even here on CAF - that public support for mass murder is not a show-stopper in terms of following Christ, and that a public official who supports and facilitates mass murder may continue the ritualistic lie that he is in communion with the teachings of Christ, and has tacit permission to continue receiving Our Lord, body, blood, soul and divinity, into his own body every Sunday.

“Catholic Answers Live” expertly fielded a question on this subject recently, as did EWTN’s “OpenLine”:

Click on show for April 24th, 2nd hour show with Tim Staples:
catholic.com/radio/calendar.php

Click on show for April 24th with Patrick Madrid:
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?SeriesID=6725&T1=

We really need to pray folks. Let’s all say a rosary or at least a devout Our Father for this intention tonight. God have mercy on us all !

 

[BartBurk]

guess what… you have no idea what was in their hearts at the time of them taking communion. i would say stop trying to assume. even if they continue in their sin afterwards. they might have been to confession. they might have made a perfect contrition. bottom line…you don’t know.

i thought they were the apostles’ successors? i also didn’t hear the pope say anything about it in the moment. are you telling me he doesn’t know who rudy gulliani is? no one told him, “hey, there is a politician who was running for president earlier this year who is catholic and pro-choice.”? if they had (which seems pretty likely), you are indicting the pope by your statement.

In Rudy Giuliani’s case his marriage situation should be enough to keep him from communing.

 

[Seatuck]

In Rudy Giuliani’s case his marriage situation should be enough to keep him from communing.

I understand what you are saying here but the thing is anullment cases are not public knowledge so we have no way of knowing if this situation has been rectified or not.

 

[Fitswimmer]

What would Jesus do? Would Jesus turn a sinner away from Him if they approached? Human beings cannot know the content of another person’s heart, but Jesus can…and does. I’m really wary of anyone trying to judge what another person’s worthiness to receive. None of us are worthy to receive, and we all say so. Jesus makes us worthy. If Jesus can make me worthy, who am I to say that He can’t choose to make anyone worthy who approaches with a sincere heart?

 

[fix]

What would Jesus do? Would Jesus turn a sinner away from Him if they approached? Human beings cannot know the content of another person’s heart, but Jesus can…and does. I’m really wary of anyone trying to judge what another person’s worthiness to receive. None of us are worthy to receive, and we all say so. Jesus makes us worthy. If Jesus can make me worthy, who am I to say that He can’t choose to make anyone worthy who approaches with a sincere heart?

Does Jesus not speak through His Church?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Does Jesus not speak through His Church?

That’s not the question I asked. If Jesus was standing there, offering Himself-would He have told those people to leave? IMHO, He is the only one that could make that judgement because he is the only one who can truly know the content of the heart of that person in front of Him.

 

[fix]

That’s not the question I asked. If Jesus was standing there, offering Himself-would He have told those people to leave? IMHO, He is the only one that could make that judgement because he is the only one who can truly know the content of the heart of that person in front of Him.

But, it is not about reading anyone’s heart. It is about public behavior and scandal. Canon law speaks to the issue.

 

[SoCalRC]

The Pope, again, as stated in the article, has made himself abundantly clear on this issue

The Pope has been clear in remarks about politicians who vote on less restrictive laws for abortion. Such as the situation in Brazil.

We believe that direct abortion is always a “grave moral disorder” (EVANGELIUM VITAE), but voting on abortion laws is not a moral absolute. The Church even suggested a morally licit situation in EVANGELIUM VITAE, and has reiterated the concept in a Doctrinal Note on participation in political life.

For the most part, the obligation with regards to communion is placed on the individual. If you are married outside the Church and having marital relations, you should probably not present yourself. If you masterbate or use contraception, you should not present yourself until you have had reconcilliation, and so on.

The question in regards to abortion voting is CIC 915, grievous public sin. Even in regards to voting, the Bishops are divided. This by no means makes the Pope incorrect, but the decision on disclipine, etc. is also his. With regards to stated public position, in absense of an actual vote, the Bishops are further divided still, and the Pope has not given much guidance.

It is the Bishop’s perogative to express an opinion about his flock, but I do not really think it is our position to judge the actions of the Bishops and Priests. They are, after all, fulfilling a divine role. Meanwhile, we all profress, in unison, our own unworthiness to receive the Lord each mass - not to mention that many of us present ourselves for communion when we should not.

 

[CapIV]

Is there any precedent of a priest actually denying someone communion? As in, if someone came up, and the priest just shunned them away? I’ve never seen this before. Plenty of talk about how pro-abortion politicians are in a state of grave mortal sin and ought not to partake in the liturgy of the Eucharist, but I don’t think I have ever seen a priest pull back the host and ask him (the politician) to step aside. It’s the sin of the politician, not the priest. How does the priest know that the politician did not attend confession the day before?

On the other hand, it might be a strong anti-abortion statement if before the Papal Mass, a statement was issued explicitly condemning pro-abortion politicians that accept Eucharist.

 

[Fitswimmer]

But, it is not about reading anyone’s heart. It is about public behavior and scandal. Canon law speaks to the issue.

I’ve read Canon Law and I’m well aware of that. However, would a public refusal of Communion at a televised Mass be any less scandalous? How would people interpret a public refusal of a communicant? Very few of the viewers, even Catholic ones, would have known the Canon Law reasoning, all they would have seen was a clergy member refusing communion.

Yes, Rudy should have known better and should have not presented himself for communion. But once he did, the scandal of refusing him might very well have been larger than the scandal of his reception.

 

[fix]

I’ve read Canon Law and I’m well aware of that. However, would a public refusal of Communion at a televised Mass be any less scandalous?

IMO, yes.

How would people interpret a public refusal of a communicant?

How do they now interpret the act now when public officials openly reject Church authority and receive communion without any public correction?

Very few of the viewers, even Catholic ones, would have known the Canon Law reasoning, all they would have seen was a clergy member refusing communion.

That can be explained. What is harder to explain is why Church teaching is important when so many important figures reject it and act as if they are behaving justly.

Yes, Rudy should have known better and should have not presented himself for communion. But once he did, the scandal of refusing him might very well have been larger than the scandal of his reception.

The scandal is that many may be led to believe it is safe to support abortion.

What I find troubling is that we now find more scandal in obeying the Church then in a public figure rejecting Church authority on a grave issue.
http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/2284.htm');

 

[Fitswimmer]

I seriously doubt that the 90% of the folks in the pews would have noticed at all if Cardinal Egan hadn’t mentioned it. Rudy was just another big wig who got a ticket to the Mass that they wished they had gotten. Before Egan’s statement, you could have probably done a poll at any Saturday night or Sunday mass and if you got 5 people that were scandalized that would be a lot.

IMO, yes.

How do they now interpret the act now when public officials openly reject Church authority and receive communion without any public correction?

That can be explained. What is harder to explain is why Church teaching is important when so many important figures reject it and act as if they are behaving justly.

The scandal is that many may be led to believe it is safe to support abortion.

What I find troubling is that we now find more scandal in obeying the Church then in a public figure rejecting Church authority on a grave issue.
http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/2284.htm');

 

[fix]

I seriously doubt that the 90% of the folks in the pews would have noticed at all if Cardinal Egan hadn’t mentioned it. Rudy was just another big wig who got a ticket to the Mass that they wished they had gotten. Before Egan’s statement, you could have probably done a poll at any Saturday night or Sunday mass and if you got 5 people that were scandalized that would be a lot.

Scandal means leading another to sin, not that some person is shocked by his behavior.

People seeing these figures publicly reject Church teaching and then receiving communion is a scandal in that many will think holding such positions is morally good and has no effect on our relationship with our Lord.

 

[MollyF]

I think it all comes down to this; obey church teaching. If you don’t obey church teaching then there are consequences. The person who believes killing babies is okay is removing her/himself from the body of Christ. That is what sin does. The politicians have a bigger role to play here because their beliefs are part of the public life. They need to be held responsible. Jesus doesn’t reject us, we reject him with our sins. He would never say no to us, we say no to him with our sins. This is why politicians should not receive communion if they are committing mortal sins.

 

[urban-hermit]

I seriously doubt that the 90% of the folks in the pews would have noticed at all if Cardinal Egan hadn’t mentioned it. Rudy was just another big wig who got a ticket to the Mass that they wished they had gotten. Before Egan’s statement, you could have probably done a poll at any Saturday night or Sunday mass and if you got 5 people that were scandalized that would be a lot.

The bottom line is the Church has the authority and, the Pope has said, the Eucharistic ministers have the obligation to turn such Catholics as these away from the sacrament of communion. So our argument is in a way a moot point. But Fitswimmer, with respect, I would say you are not understanding the actual issue.

The fact that only 5% of people think it’s a big deal proves that people’s moral radar HAS ALREADY been affected ! Turning these tragically confused Catholic politicians away from communion (not away from Mass) would be the first step in re-TEACHING the concept of “thou shalt not kill”.

The votes these politicians cast are part of the reason why the mass murder of the unborn known as our collective abortion rate is continuing in this country. That is what these politicians are supporting. Your attitude (no offense intended i hope you believe me) but this attitude which is so “popular” in our country makes light of the nature of abortion, of what happens in every single abortion, and the fact that we cooperate in it when we continue to support these laws. Yes, even pro-choice voters cooperate with it, but the pro-choice politicians which continue to get re-elected do it most publicly and undeniably.

Jesus did not turn people away. Why? Because he didn’t have to. Why? Because he NEVER left sin unchallenged. The result? Persistent sinners were forced to admit/confront their own sin and either (1) repent, or (2) walk away of their own accord.

That is what has to happen now. I think it is important to note that nobody is being prevented from attending Mass and staying in the Church. But receiving communion is not an inalienable right. And the bottom line is that the Church has the authority and - as the Pope himself has said repeatedly - “MUST” turn these persistently defiant Catholics away from the sacrament of communion until they repent to such an extent that the Church can give them communion without making it a public lie and sacrilege.