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:
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.
Click to expand...
Not to the priest it isn’t.
I’ll side with Cardinal Dolan. At least he tries to bring people back into the Church rather than drive them away.
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of choosing sides but of finding the truth. Burke has explained his position in great detail. There is a right and a wrong answer here; this is not a mere matter of opinion or preference. The truth is important.

Now if the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth’ and is placed in the world as mother and teacher, how could she neglect the task of teaching the truth which constitutes a path of life? (JPII)
 
Last edited:
To a priest, not being assigned to a ministry where he can say Mass is an issue for him

The sides are drawn in the political context of this thread

You either support the reasons given by either Cardinal Dolan or Cardinal Burke, who was fired by the Pope BTW.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
To a priest, not being assigned to a ministry where he can say Mass is an issue for him
Click to expand...
Yes, this would be a terrible decision to have to make. The alternative, however, is even more daunting.

There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. “His blood shall be required at your hands.” (St. Chrysostom)
The sides are drawn in the political context of this thread
Click to expand...
Not at all. This is a moral question. Where is the argument that we should compromise our morality in the service of our politics?
You either support the reasons given by either Cardinal Dolan or Cardinal Burke, who was fired by the Pope BTW.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read Dolan’s argument. Post a link to it and I’ll respond.
 
FiveLinden said:
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.)
Click to expand...
The existence and legality of such extreme matters moves the discussion out there; eliminating them would would move the discussion.

The political reality is that a majority of the US supports some abortion, and an overlapping majority supports more restrictions.

As we impose the restrictions for which there are support, the line moves, and so does the discussion.

So, yes, the strategy that saves the most lives is to ban wha the can today, and then move on to the next set.

No, this isn’t ideal. Yes, I would far rather ban all abortion tonight.

But as a British queen commented, “politics is the art of the possible.”

We will move faster if we focus on that which has support, at which point the most atrocious that still exists will get the attention.
 
dochawk said:
The political reality is that a majority of the US supports some abortion, and an overlapping majority supports more restrictions
Click to expand...
Actually, a very large majority in the US supports access to some abortions - rape, danger to life of mother, incest, etc. Almost no one supports the full Catholic position. By arguing extreme cases the position of those who support exceptions is reinforced.
 
Having read the article and knowing nothing more about the matter, I would think there are several issues.

The first issue is the question as to why the priest found it necessary or reasonable to send out a flier to anyone other than the legislators. Denial of Communion is a punishment, if you will, and I don’t see that it is anyone else’s business. Althogh this is not a “seal of confession” issue, it does not seem to be any different from telling a couple in an irregular marriage to not approach Communion, or a gay “married” couple; and in each of those circumstanes, there may be exceptions within Church understanding (as well as the individuals). And that is no one else’s business.

The second issue is why the flier (or perhaps a letter directed to the individual legislators) was sent to any legislator not in his parish. Although Rhode Island appears to have some 160 parishes, I have no reason to presume that any legislator not in his parish would show up there. at this point, it does not appear that he has any particular business sending a missive to someone who is not a registered parishioner - or not registered, but a known individual who shows up at the parish more than once in a blue moon (or election cycle).

The third issue is one of canonical authority; I am presuming he has that over his parishioners; if he does not, then he likely has overstepped his authority; and if he does, I would presume it only extends to parishioners.
 
otjm said:
The third issue is one of canonical authority; I am presuming he has that over his parishioners; if he does not, then he likely has overstepped his authority; and if he does, I would presume it only extends to parishioners.
Click to expand...
His authority in this matter extends to everyone who appears before him for communion.
 
Correcting a child is a kindness, but when I was growing up, it was called punishment.
 
That is interesting, because I know many, many adults who say the same as I do - that we were punished, and I knew a number of their parents who said the same thing. It may well be corrective; but that does not change the fact that it was a punishment.

I have seen far too many younger parents who want to correct their children, but seem to have a mortal fear of any punishment, as it might warp their child. And I have observed those children who have had no consequences to their actions; it is amazing how defiant a child can be.

But we are getting off track from reception of Communion to child raising; I am going to go back to the thread at this point.
 
Neither does it indicate a falsehood. And throwing out a nice Latin phrase is a polite way to be dismissive. Nice try, but no cigar.

“Punishment: a penalty imposed on an offender for a crime or wrongdoing.”
“Penalty: a punishment fixed by law, as for a crime or breach of contract.”

Both from Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1988.

what the priest “imposed” was a “penalty” “fixed by law (herein, Canon law)”.

And as to your "argument from the people - it is the people who create and use language; arguing that I am false because I use language which has been fixed long before I was born (more than a couple of decades ago) is at best amusing. It has also been more than a couple of decades ago I took Latin, as well as Philosophy.

However, I enjoy the exchange.

Correcting someone who proposes laws allowing abortion is what the priest is trying to do with his missive; but withholding Communion is a punishment from Canon Law, to make clear that his correction is not a matter of polite discourse, but a matter which is assisted by and made clear by the punishment of forbidding them to receive Communion until they amend. They are corrected when they are informed they are violating God’s law, and that is more than a kindness; it is evangelization. They are, however, refused Communion unless and until they amend, and that is the punishment, the infliction of the penalty, the forfeiture, the sanction, the deprivation, the disciplinary action.
 
Bravo! May such public declarations spread far and wide and be made by every Catholic priest. No person persisting in the public, scandalizing sin of promoting the mass-murder of children, may receive Holy Communion. Their sin has been public, so their repentance will have to be public, too. Otherwise it’s scandalous for the faithful to see them receiving Communion, as if in tacit approval of the mass-murder of children being an acceptable thing that doesn’t separate us from God.
 
That must be the royal “we”, as I am not running down any fallacies.

But thank you for your persistence; we all need amusement now and then.

God bless and have a great day!
 
JimR-OCDS said:
This article had to do with the Biden case, which overwhelms the search of when Cardinal Dolan was president of the USCCB
Click to expand...
I think this article pretty clearly expressed Dolan’s attitude toward canon 915. Here are his comments (from the article).
On his radio show Jan. 29, Dolan said that sacramental disciplinary measures against the governor “would be completely counterproductive, right?”

“Especially if you have a governor who enjoys this and wants to represent himself as a kind of martyr to the cause, doing what is right. He is proud to dissent from the essentials of the faith. He’s proud with these positions."

"For me to punish him for it? He would just say, ‘Look at the suffering this prophet has to undergo,’ the cardinal added.
Click to expand...
This is especially problematic. He recognizes that Governor Cuomo’s actions satisfy the criteria set out in canon 915, but he makes the choice not to impose the penalty for prudential reasons. The law, however, does not allow that decision; there is no “Well I think it’s counterproductive” exception.

And this one is no better:
“On the other hand, we also remember Pope Francis. We…I personally can never judge the state of a person’s soul. So it’s difficult, that’s what I’m saying. I’m not up there as a tribunal, as a judge, distributing Holy Communion, I’m there as a pastor, as a doctor of souls,”

This is just plain wrong. Edward Peters directly addressed this when Dolan said it. The minister of communion is not judging the state of a person’s soul, rather he is responding to what is publicly known. There is no argument to support the position Dolan has taken, which essentially that he won’t adhere to canon 915.

On an Oct. 31 interview with Fox News, Dolan said that he thought the incident was a good teaching moment about the Eucharist and the seriousness of denying Church teaching, but that he would not himself deny anyone reception of the Eucharist.
 
FiveLinden said:
Thus all legislators everywhere (with maybe one or two exceptions) should in logic be denied communion and the roles proscribed by Fr Bucci.
Click to expand...
Laws are voted on. An individual legislator may vote for outlawing abortion and be outvoted. How can they be held accountable, morally, for that?
towards advocating and supporting women to maintain their pregnancies and give birth into caring, supportive communities.
Click to expand...
There is a great deal of energy going into taking care of women and has been for more than 40 years. I get tired of hearing that somehow pro-lifers are doing nothing, or at least not doing enough, partly because they’re doing so much to help these women and partly because it’s like saying, “Well you can’t object to your neighbor killing her five children she can no longer care for unless you are gong to personally take those kids in.” Yes, actually, I can and will say it’s wrong to kill your children and that’s a completely separate issue from whether I can or will take on the whole world’s children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top