Pro-choice politicians take communion at Yankee Stadium

[Nino]

Yes,its disgusting and does no one any good but satan to insult the Host that way…and its not pro-choice…for the father has no choice and the developing baby also has no choice as to living or dieing…lets not fall for the pscyho-babbell of the establishment.Our beloved church has been infiltrated by demons…here in NYState we have the worst bishops who seem t care about nothing but eating the best food and making pronouncements about caring but never taking a stand on anything that is not PC!.When Guilani went up there with that forced grin and blood on his hands to receive it was sickening…We need Jesus to come back with the whip again.the money changers are back…

 

[Cajetan]

Just to clarify, in no way is the Church saying that politicians like Giuliani must never be permitted to partake in the Eucharist, like, he is barred for life or something. The Church just requires that he have a change of heart on this issue and sincerely repent through the Sacrament of Confession. This is the Christian command. As long as he believes in (and/or supports) “abortion rights,” he is in a state of mortal sin and thus must not receive the Eucharist, like anyone else in a state of mortal sin. In his current state he is just separating himself even further from God by receiving the Eucharist, because this is a very sacreligious act.

Canon Law has the eternal souls of people in mind. Denying this man the Eucharist is a supreme act of charity, and indeed, love. This is genuine Christian love, which is not the same as the “love” of our secular culture. Christian love requires a change of heart. Christ, through His Church, is telling him: “Please, please, realize the error of your ways and repent.” The Church awaits his conversion and will welcome him back with loving and open arms when he has done this.

 

[fix]

Canon Law has the eternal souls of people in mind. Denying this man the Eucharist is a supreme act of charity. The Church is telling him: “Please, please, realize the error of your ways and repent.” The Church awaits his conversion and will welcome him back with loving and open arms when he has done this.

Well said.

 

[freekick]

In the RCIA process, we teach prospective Catholics that communion can’t be refused, unless the minister is certain that the sacrament is being willfully desecrated by the recipient. We are specific that the suspicion that a recipient is in mortal sin is NOT just cause to refuse the Eucharist.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Dear SpiritMeadow,

“Meddling in affairs” ? Now THAT is amusing. I am simply sharing my viewpoint, just as you are.

But back to the topic of the conversation you have chosen to join - I am actually in agreement with some bishops and the Pope himself, who say that such politicians must be refused communion.

“The World Over Live” just did a TERRIFIC show on this subject.
ewtn.com/WorldOver/index.asp

Apparently more than 1% are interested, SpiritMeadow. I even heard that some people in rural Idaho are beginning to take note.

The fact is that all of the people you conclude were not entitled to receive communion did so. Nothing was said publically by the Vatican. I’m sure sometthing would have been done had the Vatican objected. You agree with a couple of bishops in ST. Louis. The Pope apparently was unconcerned.

I simply disagree that it is your business. It is not mine. I belongs solely to the priest and pentinent in hand.

I have no clue what is happening in Idaho. All I know is that the only place these issues come up is on the reactionary right web. Nobody talked about it in my parish, and among other Catholic friends I have on the internet, none reported it coming up at theirs either.

Why are people here so ready to throw people out? Opinions here seem to be that if you don’t agree with our version of truth, get out of the church. You guys are the ones who are out of step with the majority of Catholics, clergy and laity alike. And yes, I know, minority need not suggest wrongness. But I do decry the desire to judge everyone that walks through the door here if they suggest that they don’t agree with your assessment. (I use you, your throughout not specific to you of course, but in general.)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Not sure what this means?

Then, that would be a problem.

So you may judge, but not others. Irony.

What it means is that most of us were taught that judgment was not ours to make. If judgments need to be made they at least should be made by clergy and religious who have the necessary training to be able to make them correctly.

I see it as no problem at all that laity does not concern itself with who deserves or not to receive communion. It is an issue that is specifically between priest and pentitent.

I can judge that others have no right to judge people like this. That is not a judgement of anyone. That is a judgment that that is correct policy. I’m not condemning anyone, just stating that it is no one’s place to decide whether someone is being correct in their Catholicism. That is for people who are trained to do so, and have direct relationship with the person involved.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

In the RCIA process, we teach prospective Catholics that communion can’t be refused, unless the minister is certain that the sacrament is being willfully desecrated by the recipient. We are specific that the suspicion that a recipient is in mortal sin is NOT just cause to refuse the Eucharist.

I can think of at least 4 parishes where I have had reason to discuss the basics of the issue. In all, agreement was with what you said. This is simply not a matter for any private person to concern themselves about. It is directly between a priest and the communicant.

 

[SoCalRC]

So you agree the law exists?

I hardly think it is irrational, or morally incorrect, to desire the law to be enforced. Nor, is it a stretch to be concerned about this issue.

The law in question is CIC 915, which reads only:

“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.” - CIC 915

It is almost never enforced lightly, because of CIC 213:

“The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.” - CIC 213

Only a few applications of CIC 915 have significant Papal authority. For example, Pope John Paul was clear that it applies to Catholics who are divorced and remarried, or married outside the Church (JPII, Ap.Exhort. FC nos. 82, 84; AAS nos. 74, l83, l85; TPS n. 27 [1982] ß 71, 73; PCLT: HCDCRC).

This application also appears to have made it into the 1997 revision of the Universal Catechism (CCC 1650). However, US Bishops have been reluctant to enforce this and Rome has seemingly not pressured them to do so.

The application of CIC 915 in the case of politicians and abortion is new, and not yet clear. The only applications that I am aware of in the US have all come from Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke (previously the Bishop for La Crosse). In those cases, CIC 915 was only invoked after Burke had personallly interceded and attempted to meet directly with each party involve.d

Based on a meeting of the USCCB, Burke’s application was not challenged, but nor was it widely accepted. In the US, it appears only 2-3 Bishops consider such an application appropriate. The guidance from Rome on the matter is a little mixed.

Last year, when visiting Brazil, Pope Benedict appeared to broach the subject of excommunication with regards to politicians voting for less restrictive abortion laws in that country. But this was in news conference, and Benedict’s spokesman, Rev. Federico Lombardi, later clarified the Pope’s remarks, indicating that the Pope had missunderstood the question and the exact situation being asked about.

Direct abortion involves an automatic sentence of excommunication, but voting on abortion is not a moral absolute. Pope John Paul II gave an example of such a vote being licit in EVANGELIUM VITAE. And, even the very conservative Archbishop Burke seems to agree, having issued a statement indicating that one could vote for a pro-choice politician and not commit a mortal sin, if one believed there was a more significant moral issue than abortion was at hand.

However, in his statement, Lombardi did indicate that Benedict believes that politicians voting for more permissive abortion laws “exclude themselves from Communion”. But rather this means that CIC 915 applies, or rather the politicians should not present themselves is something of a question mark. In SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, Pope Benedict appears to give ammunition for both sides. #83 does mention politicians and Bishops’ responsibility to their flocks, but also mentions moral principles which, as Prefect, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote do not rise the the level of CIC 915.

So, it seems clear that the Pope’s position that voting for the non-negotiables identified by the Church (the section cites the 9 non negotiables and the Doctrinal Note on voting that I often quote) makes one unworthy to present oneself for communion, but it appears that the Bishops still have some latitude in deciding which votes, if any, rise to the level of CIC 915 for their flocks.

Simililarly #89 is also a little ambigious, both mentioning the Church’s obligations to contributing to a just society, while bringing up Benedict’s own warnings of the dangers of the Church being too assertive politically. Again, it appears that some latitude is given to the Bishops because of differences in local situations.

 

[Cajetan]

You guys are the ones who are out of step with the majority of Catholics, clergy and laity alike.

What the “majority” of clergy and laity thinks does not set the theological bar in the Catholic Church. The Magisterium does. If these people are not following this authority on faith and morals, woe to them, regardless of their numbers. If the situation truly were how you say it is, I would wholeheartedly encourage every Catholic to get out of step and stay out of step with the majority, who are in a sick state. So would anyone who takes the Deposit of Faith seriously.

 

[SoCalRC]

What the “majority” of clergy and laity thinks does not set the theological bar in the Catholic Church. The Magisterium does. If these people are not following this authority on faith and morals, woe to them, regardless of their numbers. If the situation truly were how you say it is, I would wholeheartedly encourage every Catholic to get out of step and stay out of step with the majority, who are in a sick state. So would anyone who takes the Deposit of Faith seriously.

Bishops are not “Vicars of the Pope”, so they only represent the Magisterium when teaching in communion with the Pope. The Bishops also best represent the infalliblity of the Church when acting in unison.

The overwhelming majority of US bishops (98 or 99%) do not believe that a public position on abortion laws rises to the level of CIC 915. Our current Pope, when Prefect, argued that CIC 915 can only be applied in the case of moral absolutes. Direct Abortion is a moral absolute, but voting on abortion is not. In EVANGELIUM VITAE, which declared direct abortion to always be, infallibly, a grave moral disorder, Pope John Paul II specifically gave an example where voting for laws permitting attacks on human life, including abortion, would be licit.

Unlike divorce and remarriage, or marriage outside the Church (both of which the Church has clearly said rises to the level denial of communion), neither popes John Paul or Benedict have given clear written guidance on the specific application of CIC 915 you are assigning to the Magisterium.

Our current Pope has made it clear that voting against any of the nine non-negotiables that the Church identified in a doctrinal note on voting can leave a Catholic unworthy to present themselves for communion. But denial of communion (CIC 915) is not clearly defined.

Given the number of Catholics here who have argued that some of the nine non-negotiables must be comromised for the sake of abortion, I think it would be wise to be careful in asserting an interpretation of Canon Law that has not been fully and clearly papally embraced, or of accusing the overwhelming majority of US bishops of schism or heresy, especially without any clear foundation in Church documents.

 

[MarcellusW]

I can think of at least 4 parishes where I have had reason to discuss the basics of the issue. In all, agreement was with what you said. This is simply not a matter for any private person to concern themselves about. It is directly between a priest and the communicant.

This would certainly not be a matter for a private person to concern themselves about IF… these people we are talking about are private people! These are Politicians! Our leaders! It is the same thing as if we were loyal Catholics living in England when Henry VIII decided to make himself his own Pope. It is certainly not a private matter when these people PUBLICLY state what is moral and not moral as a Catholic! They have already committed the same offense you are accusing all these “right wingers” on these boards of. You are simply placing a double standard on us by saying it is not our place to judge Catholic Authority when these Public Figures have already usurped Catholic Authority by enacting and voting for laws saying abortion is justified!

 

[MarcellusW]

The overwhelming majority of US bishops (98 or 99%) do not believe that a public position on abortion laws rises to the level of CIC 915.

PLease cite your source

Our current Pope, when Prefect, argued that CIC 915 can only be applied in the case of moral absolutes. Direct Abortion is a moral absolute, but voting on abortion is not. In EVANGELIUM VITAE, which declared direct abortion to always be, infallibly, a grave moral disorder, Pope John Paul II specifically gave an example where voting for laws permitting attacks on human life, including abortion, would be licit.

Please cite your source and page number.

 

[urban-hermit]

The fact is that all of the people you conclude were not entitled to receive communion did so. Nothing was said publically by the Vatican. I’m sure sometthing would have been done had the Vatican objected. You agree with a couple of bishops in ST. Louis. The Pope apparently was unconcerned.

I simply disagree that it is your business. It is not mine. I belongs solely to the priest and pentinent in hand.

I have no clue what is happening in Idaho. All I know is that the only place these issues come up is on the reactionary right web. Nobody talked about it in my parish, and among other Catholic friends I have on the internet, none reported it coming up at theirs either.

**Why are people here so ready to throw people out?**But I do decry the desire to judge everyone that walks through the door

here if they suggest that they don’t agree with your assessment. (I use you, your throughout not specific to you of course, but in general.)
Dear SpiritMeadow,

I am “Dr. A.” - I am an abortionist. I am so thankful that you support pro-abortion politicians, as this is the only way I can maintain my legal standing in my community.

I do abortions in the 3rd trimester, all of whom are viable babies, human beings just like you who are unwanted. Still alive, I tear them limb from limb, crush their heads, drag what’s left of them through their mother’s vagina, and then throw them in the garbage.

I’m quite busy - sometimes I even work on Sunday morning. Then I go to Mass afterwards and receive communion.

I’m going to be in rural Iowa next weekend on a business trip where I will be giving a lecture on medical ethics. I will be attending your parish for Mass on Sunday. Where do you sit? I want to be next to you so I can shake your hand at the sign of peace. Because I admire you for not judging me.

Father Frank Pavone explains a 2nd-trimester abortion at the following link. There are no graphic pictures. If you are pro-choice watch this or you are a cowardly hypocrite.
youtube.com/watch?v=us_y9GP_-DA

 

[fix]

What it means is that most of us were taught that judgment was not ours to make. If judgments need to be made they at least should be made by clergy and religious who have the necessary training to be able to make them correctly.

The laity are making their needs known. They are asking for canon law to be enforced. Where is the problem?

I see it as no problem at all that laity does not concern itself with who deserves or not to receive communion. It is an issue that is specifically between priest and pentitent.

It is also a matter of scandal.

I can judge that others have no right to judge people like this.

And that judgement is wrong.

That is not a judgement of anyone. That is a judgment that that is correct policy.

Those who judge the law ought to be enforced are judging correctly.

I’m not condemning anyone, just stating that it is no one’s place to decide whether someone is being correct in their Catholicism.

And that is not a judgment?

That is for people who are trained to do so, and have direct relationship with the person involved.

You are judging.

 

[fix]

The law in question is CIC 915, which reads only:

It is almost never enforced lightly, because of CIC 213:

Only a few applications of CIC 915 have significant Papal authority. For example, Pope John Paul was clear that it applies to Catholics who are divorced and remarried, or married outside the Church (JPII, Ap.Exhort. FC nos. 82, 84; AAS nos. 74, l83, l85; TPS n. 27 [1982] ß 71, 73; PCLT: HCDCRC).

This application also appears to have made it into the 1997 revision of the Universal Catechism (CCC 1650). However, US Bishops have been reluctant to enforce this and Rome has seemingly not pressured them to do so.

The application of CIC 915 in the case of politicians and abortion is new, and not yet clear. The only applications that I am aware of in the US have all come from Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke (previously the Bishop for La Crosse). In those cases, CIC 915 was only invoked after Burke had personallly interceded and attempted to meet directly with each party involve.d

Based on a meeting of the USCCB, Burke’s application was not challenged, but nor was it widely accepted. In the US, it appears only 2-3 Bishops consider such an application appropriate. The guidance from Rome on the matter is a little mixed.

Last year, when visiting Brazil, Pope Benedict appeared to broach the subject of excommunication with regards to politicians voting for less restrictive abortion laws in that country. But this was in news conference, and Benedict’s spokesman, Rev. Federico Lombardi, later clarified the Pope’s remarks, indicating that the Pope had missunderstood the question and the exact situation being asked about.

Direct abortion involves an automatic sentence of excommunication, but voting on abortion is not a moral absolute. Pope John Paul II gave an example of such a vote being licit in EVANGELIUM VITAE. And, even the very conservative Archbishop Burke seems to agree, having issued a statement indicating that one could vote for a pro-choice politician and not commit a mortal sin, if one believed there was a more significant moral issue than abortion was at hand.

However, in his statement, Lombardi did indicate that Benedict believes that politicians voting for more permissive abortion laws “exclude themselves from Communion”. But rather this means that CIC 915 applies, or rather the politicians should not present themselves is something of a question mark. In SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, Pope Benedict appears to give ammunition for both sides. #83 does mention politicians and Bishops’ responsibility to their flocks, but also mentions moral principles which, as Prefect, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote do not rise the the level of CIC 915.

So, it seems clear that the Pope’s position that voting for the non-negotiables identified by the Church (the section cites the 9 non negotiables and the Doctrinal Note on voting that I often quote) makes one unworthy to present oneself for communion, but it appears that the Bishops still have some latitude in deciding which votes, if any, rise to the level of CIC 915 for their flocks.

Simililarly #89 is also a little ambigious, both mentioning the Church’s obligations to contributing to a just society, while bringing up Benedict’s own warnings of the dangers of the Church being too assertive politically. Again, it appears that some latitude is given to the Bishops because of differences in local situations.

Do you assert those who support enforcing 915 are incorrect?

 

[fix]

This would certainly not be a matter for a private person to concern themselves about IF… these people we are talking about are private people! These are Politicians! Our leaders! It is the same thing as if we were loyal Catholics living in England when Henry VIII decided to make himself his own Pope. It is certainly not a private matter when these people PUBLICLY state what is moral and not moral as a Catholic! They have already committed the same offense you are accusing all these “right wingers” on these boards of. You are simply placing a double standard on us by saying it is not our place to judge Catholic Authority when these Public Figures have already usurped Catholic Authority by enacting and voting for laws saying abortion is justified!

Guess who agrees?:

1. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
2. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2000], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

Joseph Ratzinger, June 2004

 

[SoCalRC]

PLease cite your source

In June 2004 the USCCB Issued “Catholics in Political Life”, the bishops overwhelmingly affirmed “not only the right but also the obligation of [USCCB’s members] to aggressively educate their parishioners that those who seek Communion must maintain a moral life and be in a state of grace.”

Further, the Bishop’s affirmed affirmed the sovereignty of bishops in their dioceses. Bishops decide how to conduct their services and how to instruct (including the instruction of discipline) their flocks. However, their conduct “must be informed and guided by Church doctrine as explicated by Canonical Law, the Catechism and pronouncements from the Vatican.”

So, Archbishop Burkes’ application seems wholly within his rights and obligations. However, two resolutions where introduced, spelling out almost exactly his particular applications of CIC 915 in the case of politicians and their votes. Both were overwhelmingly defeated. Using the votes, the number would be under 1%. However, several additional Bishops noted that they agreed with the principle, but thought that it should still be handled case by case by the individual Bishops, so I tripled the vote to estimate.

Please cite your source and page number.

In 2002 the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith released a Doctrinal Note on the Participation of Catholics in Political Life.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

#4 is of particular interest here. It introduces the concept of always voting fundemental morals, expressly noting that it is wrong to vote for an attack on human life. However, the section then goes on to reintroduce the concept of “limiting the harm”. It directly quotes the principle from EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II’s encyclical.

I am using this reference because it then immediately warns of the limits of the principle, and goes further in directly identifying “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation” (non negotiable), referring to them as “fundamental and inalienable ethical demands”, which are the “essence of moral law”.

This document is also important because it was prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict cites it and refers to this section of it in SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, his post-synodal apostolic exhortation on Communion:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

This reiterates some of the language then Cardinal Ratzinger used in: WORTHINESS TO RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION: GENERAL PRINCIPLES

This was a confidential memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick which was then leaked to the public in 2004. The context is important to understand. In the preparation of “Catholics in Political Life” some Bishops believed that communion should be withheld from politicians who support the death penalty or the war in Iraq, given the Church’s strong opposition to both. Ratzinger is explaining that those teachings are not theological absolutes. Abortion and euthanasia are given as examples of absolute teachings.

However, although the letter supports the application of CIC 915 as licit, we have to be careful not to read too much into it. It cites the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts for an example of proper application and, as we have seen, a Doctrinal Note has already declared that some votes regardinging legalized abortion by politicians are morally licit.

I am not providing a link because no official copy has ever been released and there are discrepencies between the many copies online.

If you are interested in the subject, and the general shift over the policies of the last 25 years or so, there are several very good articles on the matter. For example, Carol Eisenberg’s “Bishop’s Order is Debated”, published in Newday, May 25, 2004, interviews a lot of theologians and church historians.

 

[SoCalRC]

Do you assert those who support enforcing 915 are incorrect?

It is a licit application of CIC 915 for a Bishop to make for a member of his flock, under the general guidelines for such extraordinary measures.

It is a wholly inappropriate assertion for one lay Catholic to make with regards to another, particularly if the assertion involves criticism of a prince of the Church.

 

[fix]

It is a licit application of CIC 915 for a Bishop to make for a member of his flock, under the general guidelines for such extraordinary measures.

Ok.

It is a wholly inappropriate assertion for one lay Catholic to make with regards to another, particularly if the assertion involves criticism of a prince of the Church.

Not sure what you mean? Certainly it is within reason, and justice, for a lay Catholic to question why a public figure who rejects Church authority on a critical issue recieves Holy communion.

 

[SoCalRC]

Guess who agrees?:

First, we have to note that you are quoting a confidential letter, of which no official copy has ever been given. Second, we have to actually read what it says carefully, for example:

“nderstood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws”

Notice the word “and”. Many of the politicians we are talking about here have never voted on an abortion related measure.

Next, notice the source cited for authority:

“Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2000], nos. 3-4”

The conditions and limitations noted in that document would presumably also apply.

As we have seen, when writing as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Then Cardinal Ratzinger reaffirmed Pope John Paul II’s assertion that, in certain specific cases, voting for a law permitting abortion is morally licit (see #4)

Further, as Pope, Benedict has written on the subject of Holy Communion:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

In doing so, he noted that voting against the nine non negotiables in the aforementioned Doctrinal Note would make one unworthy for Communion (see #83).

Catholics who are outraged at “pro choice” politicians receiving communion should take a very close look at the 9 non negotiables and their own “pro life” politicians. If one is, oneself, unworthy to receive communion in the opinion of the Pope, then it would seem prudent to focus energy on rectifying that instead of worrying about the state of grace of others.