Should the Church deny Pelosi and Biden the Eucharist?

[Georgia]

When people very openly support abortion, they are rebelling against the Church and they lead others to the gravest of sin. If the bishops do nothing when the person is prominent, it suggests that the church is either not serious about the sin or that there are different rules for some and not for others.

Rigid enforcement of the rules, especially in something as serious as the right to life, would surely chase some out of the Church. It would as surely bring many more back home, including some of those it disciplined.

I, for the life of me, cannot understand why bishops let this go on.

 

[Cory_G]

I follow along the same logic as most of you. I am obviously the last one to say what is right or wrong, but I think rules are rules and they should be obeyed by everyone. I feel the Church especially, should strive to treat us all the same, regardless of how famous someone is.

 

[benedictgal]

Well EWTN has a record of not having Bishops who differ with their opinion on. The disappearance from EWTN by Bishop Foley is an example.

Anyway, as has been pointed out, the decision is between the person and their Bishop.

Also, many of these politicians help raise money for their dioceses, and some like the Kennedy’s, make significant donations. So, don’t look for any publicly announced excommunication them by any Bishop.

Jim

However, I don’t think that we should be putting money ahead of priniciple. The Holy See has spoike out forcefully on the matter. I draw your attention to the memorandum that the former Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent to the bishops.

Remember, too, that it is the person who holds positions contrary to the Church who chooses to excommunicate himself from the Church. They are at fault, moreso if they are in high public profile. Just because someone gives a huge donation or holds many fundraisers doesn’t excuse him from being faithful to what the Church teaches. When we put money, power and prestige above the teachings of the Church, then there are some serious problems. We cannot serve two masters. This should hold true for elected officials. You should not make the platform of a political party more important then the precepts of the Church.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal;

Remember, too, that it is the person who holds positions contrary to the Church who chooses to excommunicate himself from the Church.

True, but the teaching of the Church is that anyone who promotes abortion or obtains one, is committing grave sin.

Most of the pro-choice politicians, even Ted Kennedy, do not promote abortion, but their votes border a fine line. They Bishops no that the legislation is not always cut and dry and there are legal issues, that sometimes force a candidate to vote against anti-abortion bills.

Just because someone gives a huge donation or holds many fundraisers doesn’t excuse him from being faithful to what the Church teaches.

I agree, but I’m naive enough to turn a blind eye to the fact that this happens. If you knew the shenanigans Cardinal Cushing was involved with in Boston politics, you’d be shocked.

When we put money, power and prestige above the teachings of the Church, then there are some serious problems. We cannot serve two masters.

I agree.

This should hold true for elected officials. You should not make the platform of a political party more important then the precepts of the Church

Trouble is, we live in a pluralistic society. A Senator or State Rep, represents all his constituents, not just Catholics. Catholics and people of other faiths, do not believe the same, when it comes to life. Many Jews , believe that ensoulment doesn’t take place until viability. There is no way, the government is going to force them to believe what Catholics believe, that a human is a person from the moment of conception.

That being said however, a Catholic Candidate, should be running his campaign as a pro-life candidate. Unfortunately for most Catholic Democrats, this would mean losing the election.

In Christ Peace
Jim

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;

True, but the teaching of the Church is that anyone who promotes abortion or obtains one, is committing grave sin.

Most of the pro-choice politicians, even Ted Kennedy, do not promote abortion, but their votes border a fine line. They Bishops no that the legislation is not always cut and dry and there are legal issues, that sometimes force a candidate to vote against anti-abortion bills.

I agree, but I’m naive enough to turn a blind eye to the fact that this happens. If you knew the shenanigans Cardinal Cushing was involved with in Boston politics, you’d be shocked.

I agree.

Trouble is, we live in a pluralistic society. A Senator or State Rep, represents all his constituents, not just Catholics. Catholics and people of other faiths, do not believe the same, when it comes to life. Many Jews , believe that ensoulment doesn’t take place until viability. There is no way, the government is going to force them to believe what Catholics believe, that a human is a person from the moment of conception.

That being said however, a Catholic Candidate, should be running his campaign as a pro-life candidate. Unfortunately for most Catholic Democrats, this would mean losing the election.

In Christ Peace
Jim

Jim, no one knows the underbelly of politics better than Benedictgal because I spent 12 years in the statehouse as an aide. I have much respect for the folks I worked with and for during my time there. However, those officials who claim to be Catholic must be held to the Church’s standards.

Are you familiar with another document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This, too, was written by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It reads, in part:

At the same time, legislative proposals are put forward which, heedless of the consequences for the existence and future of human beings with regard to the formation of culture and social behaviour, attack the very inviolability of human life. Catholics, in this difficult situation, have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.[19] As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality».[20]

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. ***A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. ***Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo.

Thus, even Catholic lawmakers and other officeholders are held accountable to what the Church teaches. This doctrinal document was issued in 2002 and has not changed.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal;

Jim, no one knows the underbelly of politics better than Benedictgal because I spent 12 years in the statehouse as an aide.

Then you have to admit that many of the so-called anti-abortion laws that republicans tried to push through congress, were so poorly written, they themselves knew they would not passed, but were used as tools to divide the parties on the issues. They votes are also taken out of context by political groups, to serve their won purposes.

For example, an amendment to increase spending for women’s reproductive health care, on a particular Indian Reservation. McCain voted against it, Obama voted for it. Pro-life groups used this to show that McCain is pro-life because the bill would allow paying for abortions with government funds, but Obama voted for the bill, made him pro-abortion. The problem is, this was just an amendment to increase spending on the original bill, which John McCain voted for its conception years ago when it made its way through congress. The bill doesn’t specify funding for abortion, but for women’s reproductive health. Of course abortions are probably performed there, and some may be necessary for the health of the mother, but the amendment doesn’t specify. It was just to increase spending.

If the two men were Catholics, some Bishops who looked only at the pro-life organizations data, would be threatening Obama for his vote, while ignoring McCain’s original vote on the bill.

Many Bishops understand the issue deeper than those who have been outspoken against candidates, who vote on these bills. Often, they consult with their priest who work with the women involved, and have a better understanding of what actually takes place on Indian Reservation health clinics. They are more pro-life than the politicians and Bishops who make judgments from their comfortable air-conditioned offices.

Jim

 

[MusicMan]

I have a hard time having this discussion. Roe v. Wade was decided during a Republican Administration. We’ve had a Republican in the White House for 25 of the 34 years since the Roe v. Wade decision, and it hasn’t been overturned by case law or legislation. President Bush even had a Republican Congress for six years, and he’s put two Pro-Life conservatives on the USSC.

It’s hard for me to see the rationale of punishing Catholic politicians who permit abortion as a matter of law when supposedly Pro-Life (as a matter of law) politicians haven’t gotten the law changed.

 

[DJgang]

Well EWTN has a record of not having Bishops who differ with their opinion on. The disappearance from EWTN by Bishop Foley is an example.

Bishop Foley retired many years ago and simply filled in until we got Bishop Baker…who, BTW is very supportive and active with EWTN. We love him!

Bishop Foley, from my personal experience of being around him and hearing him speak, is very conservative in his thinking. I absolutely love to hear him!

Anyway, no it is not our call. But we can have an opinion about someone’s actions and Yes, I think they should be denied.

God bless! Dana

 

[Scottgun]

Yes, it’s the bishop’s call, I don’t think anyone suggested otherwise. But just because it is ultimately his call, doesn’t make it a forbidden topic of discussion. It is one thing to say that a bishop is excercising due prudence by not excommunicated someone, and another thing entirely to suggest that because the bishop has not as of yet done so, that it must mean there are no grounds for it. The former is correct, the latter is baloney, and Catholic laity are well withing their rights to call on the bishop for stronger leadership. Also, opposition to legal abortion is not an option for Catholics as we are reminded in *Evangelium Vitae, *so “as a matter of law” is a red herring and any politician going for the Personally Opposed doctrine is quite simply wrong as wrong can be. Also, one needs to make up one’s mind–we constantly hear that pro-life Republics are not sincere about their pro-life commitment, but then we will hear that they are pro-life but couldn’t get the job done. Which is it? Incompetence or insincerity? And what does it have to do with the truth that there is a moral obligation to oppose legal abortion?

 

[Cory_G]

Yes, it’s the bishop’s call, I don’t think anyone suggested otherwise.

Would it be possible for an individual priest to refuse communion on the Parish level?

What types of repercussions might the Father face?

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;

Then you have to admit that many of the so-called anti-abortion laws that republicans tried to push through congress, were so poorly written, they themselves knew they would not passed, but were used as tools to divide the parties on the issues. They votes are also taken out of context by political groups, to serve their won purposes.

For example, an amendment to increase spending for women’s reproductive health care, on a particular Indian Reservation. McCain voted against it, Obama voted for it. Pro-life groups used this to show that McCain is pro-life because the bill would allow paying for abortions with government funds, but Obama voted for the bill, made him pro-abortion. The problem is, this was just an amendment to increase spending on the original bill, which John McCain voted for its conception years ago when it made its way through congress. The bill doesn’t specify funding for abortion, but for women’s reproductive health. Of course abortions are probably performed there, and some may be necessary for the health of the mother, but the amendment doesn’t specify. It was just to increase spending.

If the two men were Catholics, some Bishops who looked only at the pro-life organizations data, would be threatening Obama for his vote, while ignoring McCain’s original vote on the bill.

Many Bishops understand the issue deeper than those who have been outspoken against candidates, who vote on these bills. Often, they consult with their priest who work with the women involved, and have a better understanding of what actually takes place on Indian Reservation health clinics. They are more pro-life than the politicians and Bishops who make judgments from their comfortable air-conditioned offices.

Jim

But, Jim, even the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith noted that the tantamount issue is abortion. We can legitimately disagree with the Holy Father on the issues of war and the death penalty, but, abortion is non-negotiable.

Again, the problem lies when the Catholic officeholder puts his party platform and ideology ahead of the teachings of the Church.

Your argument reminds me of the “seamless garment” theory that my pastor brought up in his letter to the editor which explained why he voted for the Democratic nominee this year. Inasmuch as I would like to help the Indian reservation, where I to vote on the bill, I would have to cast a “nay” because I would not want taxpayer funds used to peform abortions. Take out that string and ban abortions on the Indian reservations and then an “aye” would have been justified.

 

[Scottgun]

Would it be possible for an individual priest to refuse communion on the Parish level?

What types of repercussions might the Father face?

To the best of my knowlege, a priest can refuse communion. I think there is a difference between the act of refusing communion and canonical excommunication, but I let others handle that. The problem is that someone obstinate and mobile will just go to another parish.

As far as repercussions, if he has a bishop hostile to the concept of refusing communion, then all kinds of repercussions are imaginable.

 

[MrS]

Actually the Church has already made its position clear… crystal clear.

They, NP and JB and others, by their actions, have lost the priviledge of communion, denying themselves of the Lord.

So now we just need stronger bishops in many locations to get them to understand… and make it clear, crystal clear, to other Catholics that the sin has consequences.

.

 

[elvisman]

And again I say,

This is an opinion thread and, as such has issued a call for people’s opinions.

Nobody is insinuating that they are above the bishops. They are expressing an opinion on the matter.
Get over it.

 

[Scottgun]

Many Bishops understand the issue deeper than those who have been outspoken against candidates, who vote on these bills.

Wow. That gets my vote for the Begging-the-Question Award of the Day.

 

[Cory_G]

This is an opinion thread and, as such has issued a call for people’s opinions.

Nobody is insinuating that they are above the bishops. They are expressing an opinion on the matter.
Get over it.

Concur

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal;

Your argument reminds me of the “seamless garment” theory that my pastor brought up in his letter to the editor which explained why he voted for the Democratic nominee this year. Inasmuch as I would like to help the Indian reservation, where I to vote on the bill, I would have to cast a “nay” because I would not want taxpayer funds used to peform abortions. Take out that string and ban abortions on the Indian reservations and then an “aye” would have been justified.

The problem is that the legislation usually doesn’t specify abortion, but more broadly, “women’s reproductive health.” In reality, they can’t specify abortion because the term “abortion,” from the medical standpoint is broad. It could mean prohibiting an induced labor, in order to protect the health of the mother. Not all abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies.

The bottom line is, its not clear cut and as I stated before, many Bishops understand the deeper complexities of the issue, and therefor, have not prohibited Catholic politicians in their dioceses from receiving Holy Communion.

I’m not saying that Pelosi is not pro-abortion, I believe she is.

Biden on the other hand, I don’t believe he is.

Jim

 

[Cory_G]

benedictgal;

Biden on the other hand, I don’t believe he is.

Jim

Is that from the gut or has he shown that he is not pro-abortion through speeches, writings, votes?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The canon law is clear (as the now-prefect of the Church’s high court ably established in a recent article: therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm), and the 2004 instruction sent to the USCCB was equally clear that in such situations, communion “must” be denied. There is no simultaneously honest and knowledgeable way the bishops can claim the law to be ambiguous - the fact of the matter is that many (even the majority) simply don’t want to enforce it because they think they know better how to be “pastoral.”

 

[MusicMan]

This is an opinion thread and, as such has issued a call for people’s opinions.

Nobody is insinuating that they are above the bishops. They are expressing an opinion on the matter.
Get over it.

CAF and EWTN are rampant with people who behave like they and their opinions are above their pastors, their bishops, and the Magesterium. I won’t be “getting over it” any time soon.