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.
JimR-OCDS said:
Matthews said, but your telling a member of Congress how they’re suppose to do it.
Click to expand...
Sin is sin.
Doesn’t matter if one knows the proper punishment, we know it to be a sin.

The Bishop is an expert in morality, not civil law.
Matthews knew this and decided to try to use it against the Bishop.
 
So what should be the penalty for a woman or doctor who violated the law against abortion, if you could write it and get it passed ?
 
So you would put a woman who obtains an abortion in jail for life ?
 
Because countenancing and even supporting (politically or, by taxes, financially) the killing of innocent children tells us who we are. And it is a very adverse verdict. We’re no better than ancient Carthaginians who used to burn live children to ensure prosperity. Yes, perhaps women wanting abortions will take abortifacients or go to Canada or (more likely) some Democrat-dominated state. But we don’t all have to endorse it, or shouldn’t have to.
 
I would not like it, but she did hire someone to commit murder.

Perhaps there are other factors involved that would spread blame…perhaps others applying pressure. But she is still responsible for her actions.
 
Ridgerunner said:
But we don’t all have to endorse it, or shouldn’t have to
Click to expand...
There are no laws against lying, or hating people, or envy, or gluttony but that doesn’t mean I think you endorse them. Laws are practical things. If they don’t have a practical effect, they are worse than useless, since the impractical ones teach contempt for the law.
 
It’s allowed…

And our tax dollars pay for children to be indoctrinated with these recommendations that could send their souls to hell, too.
 
Yes…

But some are pressured to do it. Too, when I’ve read about young girls literally throwing their babies into the garbage after giving birth I’m not surprised, since schools have been teaching for decades that they’re not babies to begin with.
 
Last edited:
What makes it impractical? A lack beds in women’s prisons? An inability to imprison abortionists?

Is it also impractical to remove funding for it?
 
Last edited:
MiserereMeiDei said:
What makes it impractical? A lack beds in women’s prisons? An inability to imprison abortionists?

Is it also impractical to remove funding for it?
Click to expand...
As I suggested above, medical abortion and inter-state and international travel, plus the well-established age-old practice of women procuring abortions illegally when they are not legal. Most poster on CAF do not advocate imprisoning women who have abortions. Why do you?
 
I find murder to be a crime worthy of prison, at least. Most people do. Oddly, they carve out an odd exception for killing babies. I don’t. I also consider prison a deterrent. Most people don’t want to go there.

Pills - We have a war on drugs. This can easily be added to the Schedule 1 list.
International travel - that is impractical for many women. Plus the US can be quite persuasive. I’m sure it can be made more difficult for many US citizens abroad.
Hangars/“back alley abortions”/etc. - No reason abortionists can’t be imprisoned when caught, and even still, to think that the numbers would be similar is not well conceived. The numbers were far lower before legalization.
 
Last edited:
And it’s this very mentality which has kept abortion from being banned since Roe V Wade

Once you understand the nastiness of the words used by the pro-life people, perhaps we can start educating people and they’ll oppose abortion on their own rather than look for the government to outlaw it
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Once you understand the nastiness of the words used by the pro-life people, perhaps we can start educating people and they’ll oppose abortion on their own rather than look for the government to outlaw it
Click to expand...
All of this is irrelevant to the topic of the thread. The issue is whether that priest behaved correctly or not in telling pro-abortion legislators not to present themselves for communion. Debating what should be done to abortionists, or to women who procure them is simply a distraction. Is there a claim that the priest’s action was based on a misunderstanding of canon 915?
 
He has to follow what his Bishop says.

He doesn’t know the ins and outs of legislation which a politician may be voting on, to know that it directly supports abortion.

Using the Sacrament as a weapon to get people in line, Cardinal Dolan opposed.

I agree with him.

Unless the legislation directly promotes or supports abortion, using the Sacrament as a political weapon is unacceptable.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
He has to follow what his Bishop says.
Click to expand...
Actually he doesn’t. What he has to do is what the church teaches; if he believes the criteria for canon 915 have been met then he is obligated to enforce it. That is not an obligation of which even his bishop can relieve him.
He doesn’t know the ins and outs of legislation which a politician may be voting on, to know that it directly supports abortion.
Click to expand...
This is not all that complicated. It’s usually pretty easy to know where politicians stand on abortion.
Using the Sacrament as a weapon to get people in line, Cardinal Dolan opposed.
Click to expand...
If the criteria have been met the canon applies, and the priest is morally obligated to enforce it. That is not weaponizing the sacrament. It is following the moral law.
Unless the legislation directly promotes or supports abortion, using the Sacrament as a political weapon is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
This is not an argument that the criteria have not been met. It is a complaint that the sanction is imposed, whether it applies or not.
 
Last edited:
OK, if he wants to serve as a priest in the dioceses, he has to obey his Bishop or else the Bishop won’t have him in his dioceses

So you’re saying Cardinal Dolan didn’t understand Canon law correctly ?
 
Last edited:
JimR-OCDS said:
OK, if he wants to serve as a priest in the dioceses, he has to obey his Bishop or else the Bishop won’t have him in his dioceses
Click to expand...
If the priest is put in the position of protecting his job, or protecting the sacrament then I guess he’ll have to make a choice. His bishop might seek to get rid of him. Is that a good enough reason for the priest to act immorally himself?
So you’re saying Cardinal Dolan didn’t understand Canon law correctly ?
Click to expand...
I have no idea why Cardinal Dolan does the things he does. My judgment of him is irrelevant, but if you think this is a significant question then I’ll point out that Cardinal Burke, who is not just a canon lawyer but was appointed by BXVI to be Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (essentially the Chief Justice of the highest ecclesial court in the church) took exactly the opposite position. He presented a 40+ page paper on the subject that was released a few weeks (months?) before BXVI promoted him. Dolan’s opinion isn’t all that compelling.
 
The priest wouldn’t have the opportunity to say Mass in a diocesan parish if his Bishop doesn’t allow it., So the point is moot.

Cardinal Dolan or Cardinal Burke ?

I’ll side with Cardinal Dolan. At least he tries to bring people back into the Church rather than drive them away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top