Rhode Island parish priest puts out list of pro-abortion legislators, says they can't receive communion. Legislator named strikes out against him

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdgspencer

Guest
see https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...communion-to-legislators-who-support-abortion

Rev. Richard Bucci distributed the fliers last week at Sacred Heart Church in West Warwick, the Providence Journal reported on Saturday. He also mailed them to the homes of several lawmakers.

When asked if the Rhode Island Diocese condones Bucci’s action, spokeswoman Carolyn Cronin said the Church entrusts its pastors to make pastoral and administrative decisions at “the local parish level.”
 
Last edited:
It sounds like this Carolyn Cronin has some relationship with the parish, claiming that decades ago her sister was molested there by some priest who’s now deceased and also complaining that she was excluded from a relative’s funeral there (the priest’s story is that she just wasn’t allowed to give a eulogy).

This Providence Journal article really reads like a big hatchet job on the Church. I’m inclined to side with Fr. Bucci after reading this.

 
Last edited:
I just tend to agree with the last quote in the article: this should have come from the diocese. Unless these legislators are all parishioners of his, Fr. Bucci has no authority to determine if they can receive Communion in other parishes.
 
I thought he was just telling them they couldn’t receive at his own parish. Presumably if any of these people goes to church and has their own parish priest who they actually interact with, they could clarify that in a heartbeat. I doubt Fr. Bucci’s parish is the only one in Rhode Island.
 
I applaud his actions. Not only for this but also he took these actions " Father Bucci told The Journal that he anonymously sent the state police photographs of teenagers in lewd poses that he found in the room of the onetime pastor, with whom he once served at St. Mary’s Church, in Bristol, after telling a top official at the diocese “three times” and seeing nothing done about it" We need more Priest like Rev. Richard Bucci
 
Oh, I agree he has that authority in his own parish. The article was a little unclear, that’s why I asked if everyone on the list was a parishioner.
 
I suspect the articles are unclear because the “journalists” writing them don’t know much about the Catholic Church and in the case of Providence Journal are more interested in writing a hatchet job about all kinds of unrelated negative things.
 
As far as I know there is no US state which has passed a law relating to abortion that is fully in line with Church teaching. Typically, even in the most restrictive of laws, there is provision for abortion in the case of a threat to the life of the mother, rape or incest. And as far as I know no legislature has passed an outright ban on the drugs used for early abortion. And all legislatures have laws that allow the use of contraceptives including those claimed by some pro-lifers to (sometimes) effect abortions.

Thus all legislators everywhere (with maybe one or two exceptions) should in logic be denied communion and the roles proscribed by Fr Bucci.

But his action seems to be not based on the application of principle. It appears to be based on the realpolitik of what can be practically achieved in restricting access to abortion.
 
Voting in favor of advancing abortion is a public display actively against Catholic Doctrine.
 
Amen!

As a general rule: Turn the heat up and watch the snowflakes go into meltdown.
 
Last edited:
House of Representatives members David Cicilline and Jim Langevin of Rhode Island both voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
This is particularly hideous because babies can feel pain at 20 weeks.
clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll549.xml
 
I think that historically in times and places where abortion has been highly restricted, abortions have taken place in spite of the restrictions. This is especially the case where travel to unrestricted jurisdictions is possible as, for example, it was from Ireland to the UK. But the historical evidence seems to suggest that abortion laws are not very effective. Laws that are designed to harass providers or to just make it difficult for women getting abortions (waiting periods, ultra-sound scans etc) probably have no effect at all.

Now, with medical (drug) abortions easily available and there being no prospect of effectively restricting the drugs the only result I can see from even the most restrictive laws on surgical abortion in the US is an increase in early medical abortions and travel to Canada.

I simply don’t understand why all this pro-life effort is directed towards the law and banning things that almost never happen (partial-birth abortions etc.) than towards advocating and supporting women to maintain their pregnancies and give birth into caring, supportive communities. I am not saying there is no such effort, just that the legal battle appears to me to utterly dominate despite its strategically gloomy outlook for pro-lifers.
 
FiveLinden said:
This is especially the case where travel to unrestricted jurisdictions is possible as, for example, it was from Ireland to the UK. But the historical evidence seems to suggest that abortion laws are not very effective. Laws that are designed to harass providers or to just make it difficult for women getting abortions (waiting periods, ultra-sound scans etc) probably have no effect at all.
Click to expand...
This is not true.
When Ireland still had its restrictions, the number travelling to Great Britain wasn’t even that high. When accounting for that, Ireland would still have had the lowest rates in Europe.
FiveLinden said:
I think that historically in times and places where abortion has been highly restricted, abortions have taken place in spite of the restrictions.
Click to expand...
By the same logic, we shouldn’t make theft illegal as theft still occurs in places where theft is illegal.
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
By the same logic, we shouldn’t make theft illegal as theft still occurs in places where theft is illegal.
Click to expand...
No of course not. But by the same logic you should not pass innumerable laws designed merely to annoy, but not deter, thieves. And putting massive amounts of energy into anti-theft legislation might be unwise. I know it is up to me to back up the first claim but given the regularity with which the claim I made about Ireland is made, perhaps you would like to help me out and cite a claim for your ‘one of the lowest rates in Europe’?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top