Pro-choice politicians take communion at Yankee Stadium

[SoCalRC]

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.

No. First of all, we all profess our own unworthiness as a precursor to receiving communion. If we profess this in honesty, then it is illogical for us to debate about others being less or more unworthy than ourselves. Such relative moral comparisons are specifically warned against by Christ in the Gospels.

Second, by asserting that the politicians received communion incorrectly, we are challenging Church authority. We are not a democracy, but a devinely constructed heirarchy. We do not know what steps in education or correction have occured, nor do we know the precise state of the communicants with regards to other sacrements.

Look closely at the first one. We are all sinners. If we read closely what then Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict has officially written specifically on the subjects of voting and communion we will find that a good many “pro life” politicians, and Catholics who vote for them are seemingly inelligable for communion as well.

If lay Catholics want to apply Church doctrine on the sacrements strictly, they should begin with themselves.

 

[fix]

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:

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

Nothing in that letter contradicts 915, nor does not support your position.

Next, notice the source cited for authority:

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

The quoted source was used to show denying communion was correct.

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.

Thanks for the smoke screen.

 

[fix]

No. First of all, we all profess our own unworthiness as a precursor to receiving communion.

So? What has that to do with the issue at hand?

If we profess this in honesty, then it is illogical for us to debate about others being less or more unworthy than ourselves. Such relative moral comparisons are specifically warned against by Christ in the Gospels.

This is disingenuous and certainly is not relevant to the discussion. We are speaking of public sin and scandal. We speak of canon law and how and why it should be applied. If you reject canon law and Church authority in this issue just say it.

Second, by asserting that the politicians received communion incorrectly, we are challenging Church authority. We are not a democracy, but a devinely constructed heirarchy. We do not know what steps in education or correction have occured, nor do we know the precise state of the communicants with regards to other sacrements.

Questioning and asking for enforcement is not contrary to any of that.

Look closely at the first one. We are all sinners. If we read closely what then Cardinal Ratzinger and now Pope Benedict has officially written specifically on the subjects of voting and communion we will find that a good many “pro life” politicians, and Catholics who vote for them are seemingly inelligable for communion as well.

How is this related to 915?

If lay Catholics want to apply Church doctrine on the sacrements strictly, they should begin with themselves.

That is not what 915 is about. But, if you want to claim the Pope is wrong and people like archbishop Burke are wrong then go ahead.

 

[SoCalRC]

Nothing in that letter contradicts 915, nor does not support your position.

The quoted source was used to show denying communion was correct.

We are talking about a letter whose primary purpose was to explain why CIC 915 should be applied more judiciously, not less. It gave an example where an application might be licit. However, notice that it discusses steps that should be taken before denial occurs. It also cites a clear explanation of licit use with Papal authority.

So, in the exact situation at hand, we have multiple politicians who have not even met the sample criteria in the letter (most have not voted on an actual abortion law).

We also have steps, in the letter, which should be followed by the local Church authority before CIC 915 is applied. We have no knowledge on rather or not these steps have been taken in the case of these individuals.

But somehow you want to extract a moral absolute?

Thanks for the smoke screen.

I think you are confused. You are talking about a letter between Cardinals, in a specific context. I am citing written documents, from Rome, specifically on the subjects at hand.

Our current Pope wrote the Doctrinal Note on voting in his official capacity as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. It was approved for promulgation by Pope John Paul II as a Doctrinal Note. Now, as Pope, Benedict refers to it DIRECTLY on the subject of worthiness to receive communion.

Unlike the letter, which was never officially distributed at all, both documents are addressed to the lay faithful. If you think that directives, to lay Catholics, specifically on the subject at hand, from Rome are a “smoke screen”, we need to review the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

Bottom line, if you want to know what the Church teaches on a subject, declarations from the Church, on the specific subject are the ultimate authority. The opinions of Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals only carry the weight of the Church when they are in agreement with the Pontiff.

 

[SoCalRC]

So? What has that to do with the issue at hand?

If you cannot see the relevance, I cannot explain it to you. Though we have two Sunday Gospel readings coming up soon that touch on the subject.

As for the rest, I can only repeat the obvious. It is impossible to be more Catholic, or a better authority on Catholic Doctrine, than the Pope. I’ve provided our current Pope’s latest official writing on Communion, and the Doctrinal Note which it cites on the subject of political activity and communion.

If a doctrinal interpretation is licit, it must be able to be reconciled to these documents. If it cannot, then other heirarchal sources (like leaked Cardinal letters) are either incorrect or, more likely, not properly understood (as I noted above, the situation under discussion does not even meet, exactly, the crtieria in the Cardinal’s letter).

 

[fix]

We are talking about a letter whose primary purpose was to explain why CIC 915 should be applied more judiciously, not less. It gave an example where an application might be licit. However, notice that it discusses steps that should be taken before denial occurs. It also cites a clear explanation of licit use with Papal authority.

No one has claimed the pols in question should not be contacted first and given complete catechesis.

So, in the exact situation at hand, we have multiple politicians who have not even met the sample criteria in the letter (most have not voted on an actual abortion law).

Is this the new tactic being used now to support pro abortion pols?

We also have steps, in the letter, which should be followed by the local Church authority before CIC 915 is applied. We have no knowledge on rather or not these steps have been taken in the case of these individuals.

It has been many years for many of these folks. I think most folks who call for application of 915 accept that should have been done, has been done, or will be done.

But somehow you want to extract a moral absolute?

Not following.

I think you are confused. You are talking about a letter between Cardinals, in a specific context. I am citing written documents, from Rome, specifically on the subjects at hand.

No, you are citing documents and giving your interpretation in an attempt to draw attention away from the scandal.

Our current Pope wrote the Doctrinal Note on voting in his official capacity as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. It was approved for promulgation by Pope John Paul II as a Doctrinal Note. Now, as Pope, Benedict refers to it DIRECTLY on the subject of worthiness to receive communion.

We are talking about 915.

Unlike the letter, which was never officially distributed at all, both documents are addressed to the lay faithful. If you think that directives, to lay Catholics, specifically on the subject at hand, from Rome are a “smoke screen”, we need to review the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

No, they are not a smoke screen. Your attempt to use them to cover for pro abort pols is the smoke screen.

Bottom line, if you want to know what the Church teaches on a subject, declarations from the Church, on the specific subject are the ultimate authority. The opinions of Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals only carry the weight of the Church when they are in agreement with the Pontiff.

And AB Burke is in agreement with the Pontiff.

 

[fix]

If you cannot see the relevance, I cannot explain it to you. Though we have two Sunday Gospel readings coming up soon that touch on the subject.

As for the rest, I can only repeat the obvious. It is impossible to be more Catholic, or a better authority on Catholic Doctrine, than the Pope. I’ve provided our current Pope’s latest official writing on Communion, and the Doctrinal Note which it cites on the subject of political activity and communion.

If a doctrinal interpretation is licit, it must be able to be reconciled to these documents. If it cannot, then other heirarchal sources (like leaked Cardinal letters) are either incorrect or, more likely, not properly understood (as I noted above, the situation under discussion does not even meet, exactly, the crtieria in the Cardinal’s letter).

The problem is not Cardinal Ratzinger, archbishop Burke, or all the rest. The problem is your analysis.

 

[SoCalRC]

Is this the new tactic being used now to support pro abortion pols?

I have never supported Catholics voting pro choice. Your repeated assertions otherwise, in the absence of any evidence and in direct contradiction to my many statements to the contrary is noted.

Falsely discrediting others is a common tactic on talk radio, but it is actually prohibited in the Catechism (see “Truth” in the index of either the Universal Catechism or the Local Catechism).

We are talking about 915.

False, we are talking about a specific application of CIC 915. That is, the subject at hand is worthiness for communion in relationship to political activity.

The Church has written on both subjects, with the document on the former referencing the document on the latter.

If you do not think that these are relevant, then we cannot discuss the subject in a good faith, in a Catholic context. There is no higher authority than Rome on the morality of a specific situation or the proper application of Church doctrine. Period.

And AB Burke is in agreement with the Pontiff.

And I specifically said so. But you are not a Bishop, Archbishop, or Cardinal. As a member of the lay faithful, the most relevant documents are the one’s addressed to you on the subject, from Rome, which I have cited and linked to.

If you want to cite the Magisterium’s authority, then you must cite the entire teaching and all its implications. Doing otherwise is Cafeteria Catholicism.

The problem is not Cardinal Ratzinger, archbishop Burke, or all the rest. The problem is your analysis.

Again, this is a false and misleading argument. I have stated in uncertain terms that Burke was within his rights and obligations.

Similiarly, I am arguing that Ratzinger was neither heretical or a schismatic when her wrote the letter you are using. That is, my position is that Ratzinger intended to fully reflect proper and complete doctrine of the Church. You are trying to use an interpretation of Ratzinger’s words to refute a Doctrinal Note. That is, you are asserting that Ratzinger was at odds with Rome - a seeming accusation.

Again, inflammatory and unsubstantiated remarks may be ‘normal discourse’ in talk radio, but they are not suitable in the context of Catholic theological discussion. If your interpretation is licit and appropriate, it should be easily reconciled with the documents from Rome.

For example, we can go through SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, #83 a sentence at a time, as well as the Doctrinal Note (and other documents) it cites. That would be a suitable method of discrediting my “analysis”. Thumping your chest and calling me, falsely, an abortion supporter is not.

 

[urban-hermit]

No. First of all, we all profess our own unworthiness as a precursor to receiving communion. If we profess this in honesty, then it is illogical for us to debate about others being less or more unworthy than ourselves. Such relative moral comparisons are specifically warned against by Christ in the Gospels.

Wrong. You are confounding the unworthiness of a Teresa of Calcutta to receive the Eucharist with the unworthiness of a John Kerry to receive the Eucharist. You ignore that the word “unworthiness” is meant differently in different contexts. This is why your verbose analysis does not lead to a greater understanding of what is going on. You fail to grasp the most basic element of the issue.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

Given your rudeness to me telling me that I am too thick headed to understand much, and your claim that given the opportunity you would excommunicate me because I do not follow (in your opinion) church teachings in the manner you perceive correct (and how you know what I follow is a mystery), can you possibly understand that your opinion means nothing to me?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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!

Their status as poltiicians changes nothing. Vis a vis the church they are still pentinent and priest. We have no ability to breach that sacrosanct confessional and I certainly have no desire to. You, I submit have not right to question them as a lay person, nor I.

I have no evidence that they have made public statements about Church dogma. I have no evidence they have spoken as Catholics. Even if they had, this again is solely within the province of the clergy and those who are trained in appropriate canon law and relgiious counseling.

You have failed to show where they have enacted laws saying abortion is justified. All I am aware of is a failure to enact criminal penalties against those who obtain or assist abortion. Quite different matters.

I fail to see how claiming that something is not the province of the laity is somehow supporting one side or the other. I simply make no judgment, and leave it to those whose job it is.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

You are clearly out of bounds, you have changed the entire focus of the argument. You should be ashamed of such tactics. Shock value is really beneath this type of discussion.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

It is also a matter of scandal.

And that judgement is wrong.

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

And that is not a judgment?

You are judging.

That would be fine if the average laity was trained in canon law. They are not. They are not clergy. Why are you trying to act as such. If God did not call you, perhaps its for a very good reason.

 

[SoCalRC]

Wrong. You are confounding the unworthiness of a Teresa of Calcutta to receive the Eucharist with the unworthiness of a John Kerry to receive the Eucharist. You ignore that the word “unworthiness” is meant differently in different contexts. This is why your verbose analysis does not lead to a greater understanding of what is going on. You fail to grasp the most basic element of the issue.

Where, in written Church Dogma or Doctrine, is it established that I, as a member of the lay faithful, have a right or a responsibility to judge the sacremental grace of a fellow Catholic?

Am I John Kerry’s confessor? Am I his Bishop?

In the Catechism I can find the lessons from the beginning of Matthew 7:

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew7.htm

And I can find the proper roles of the heirarchy of God’s Church.

But the need to be either cast stones or be a makeshift Canon lawyer eludes me. Since you are speaking with such conviction, perhaps you can steer me to the proper Church documents.

 

[urban-hermit]

Where, in written Church Dogma or Doctrine, is it established that I, as a member of the lay faithful, have a right or a responsibility to judge the sacremental grace of a fellow Catholic?

Am I John Kerry’s confessor? Am I his Bishop?

In the Catechism I can find the lessons from the beginning of Matthew 7:

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew7.htm

And I can find the proper roles of the heirarchy of God’s Church.

But the need to be either cast stones or be a makeshift Canon lawyer eludes me. Since you are speaking with such conviction, perhaps you can steer me to the proper Church documents.

You are really kidding, right? The proper Church document is the canon from Canon Law that we have been talking about all along. And, again, we do not have to judge if somebody is in the state of grace, only that they are in “manifest grave sin”, as Cardinal Ratzinger s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t in his letter.

Think about it - why would Canon Law require us to judge if somebody is subjectively in mortal sin or not? This is impossible to ascertain for anybody, priest or layperson alike. Oh, my nerves! I urge you to read the links and think carefully before posting again.

 

[fix]

That would be fine if the average laity was trained in canon law. They are not. They are not clergy. Why are you trying to act as such. If God did not call you, perhaps its for a very good reason.

I will praraphrase Cardinal Arinze…Even a first grader knows…

 

[fix]

I have never supported Catholics voting pro choice. Your repeated assertions otherwise, in the absence of any evidence and in direct contradiction to my many statements to the contrary is noted.

Falsely discrediting others is a common tactic on talk radio, but it is actually prohibited in the Catechism (see “Truth” in the index of either the Universal Catechism or the Local Catechism).

False, we are talking about a specific application of CIC 915. That is, the subject at hand is worthiness for communion in relationship to political activity.

The Church has written on both subjects, with the document on the former referencing the document on the latter.

If you do not think that these are relevant, then we cannot discuss the subject in a good faith, in a Catholic context. There is no higher authority than Rome on the morality of a specific situation or the proper application of Church doctrine. Period.

And I specifically said so. But you are not a Bishop, Archbishop, or Cardinal. As a member of the lay faithful, the most relevant documents are the one’s addressed to you on the subject, from Rome, which I have cited and linked to.

If you want to cite the Magisterium’s authority, then you must cite the entire teaching and all its implications. Doing otherwise is Cafeteria Catholicism.

Again, this is a false and misleading argument. I have stated in uncertain terms that Burke was within his rights and obligations.

Similiarly, I am arguing that Ratzinger was neither heretical or a schismatic when her wrote the letter you are using. That is, my position is that Ratzinger intended to fully reflect proper and complete doctrine of the Church. You are trying to use an interpretation of Ratzinger’s words to refute a Doctrinal Note. That is, you are asserting that Ratzinger was at odds with Rome - a seeming accusation.

Again, inflammatory and unsubstantiated remarks may be ‘normal discourse’ in talk radio, but they are not suitable in the context of Catholic theological discussion. If your interpretation is licit and appropriate, it should be easily reconciled with the documents from Rome.

For example, we can go through SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, #83 a sentence at a time, as well as the Doctrinal Note (and other documents) it cites. That would be a suitable method of discrediting my “analysis”. Thumping your chest and calling me, falsely, an abortion supporter is not.

You have backwards. You are trying to use your interpretation as actual Church teaching.

I am not buying your talk radio tactics use of obfuscation and misdirection and disassembling to prove your case.

 

[fix]

You are really kidding, right? The proper Church document is the canon from Canon Law that we have been talking about all along. And, again, we do not have to judge if somebody is in the state of grace, only that they are in “manifest grave sin”, as Cardinal Ratzinger s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t in his letter.

Think about it - why would Canon Law require us to judge if somebody is subjectively in mortal sin or not? This is impossible to ascertain for anybody, priest or layperson alike. Oh, my nerves! I urge you to read the links and think carefully before posting again.

Yes, it is about misdirecting the argument. The talk about judging and subjective guilt is not even the issue.

 

[SoCalRC]

You are really kidding, right? The proper Church document is the canon from Canon Law that we have been talking about all along.

I am the one who first quoted it (CIC 915) above. It is short and vague. Notice that specific applications (like divorce and remarriage) generally warrant additional guidance from the Church.

Think about it - why would Canon Law require us to judge if somebody is subjectively in mortal sin or not?

It does not require “us”, in fact, if you read it:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

You will see that it includes rules about who should and should not be doing the interpretation and application.

This is reinforced in the Catechism, where our respective roles in the Church is also explained.

 

[SoCalRC]

You have backwards. You are trying to use your interpretation as actual Church teaching.

I am not buying your talk radio tactics use of obfuscation and misdirection and disassembling to prove your case.

I’ve pointed to documents from the Church and asked you to reconcile your alternate interpretation to them. Perhaps you should check the defintions of “obfuscation”, “misdirection”, and “disassembling”.

No one asked you to ‘buy’ into anything. You were simply being asked to substantiate your point of view with something other than hand waving and false insults. If your point of view is licit, it should be reconcilable with Rome’s Doctrinal explanations. If it is not, hand waving and back biting will not change that fact.