Should the Church deny Pelosi and Biden the Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cory_G
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cory_G

Guest
Yesterday I watched The World Over on EWTN. On it the host, Raymond Arroyo was asking the Bishops, which were guests, whether or not the Church should deny the Eucharist to Pelosi, Biden, and other Catholic politicians who support abortion.

Archbishop Joseph Naumanny, stated last night on EWTN, he told the Governor of Kansas she shouldn’t participate in the Eucharist. He didn’t officially deny her but made it apparently clear she shouldn’t partake.

I was wondering where our community weighs in on this matter.
 
Yesterday I watched The World Over on EWTN. On it the host, Raymond Arroyo was asking the Bishops, which were guests, whether or not the Church should deny the Eucharist to Pelosi, Biden, and other Catholic politicians who support abortion.

Archbishop Joseph Naumanny, stated last night on EWTN, he told the Governor of Kansas she shouldn’t participate in the Eucharist. He didn’t officially deny her but made it apparently clear she shouldn’t partake.

I was wondering where our community weighs in on this matter.
Their Bishops and Pastors should speak with them, and do what ever is necessary.
 
This is what the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said, in his capacity as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, when this matter came up back in 2004 (when John Kerry was the nominee):
  1. The ***Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. ***The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
  1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
4. Apart from an individual’s judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
  1. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
This should be the guilding principle for pastors of souls to use concerning denying Holy Communion. It is never an easy decision for the Church to make; however, the politician (or anyone else, for that matter) is the one who puts himself in that position. He is the one who separates himself from the Church, not the other way around.
 
This question is best left to their local Ordinary and not to the rest of the faithful.
 
The Church should send a priest to both of them, and privately ask them not to receive if they attend Mass. That way, this keeps the issue from becoming a political weapon for either side, and the Church’s guidelines are followed.

There is no reason for this to become a public matter, with the Church’s bishops not having to argue over it, and the two of them avoiding the public embarassment of actually being refused the Eucharist.
 
The Church should send a priest to both of them, and privately ask them not to receive if they attend Mass. That way, this keeps the issue from becoming a political weapon for either side, and the Church’s guidelines are followed.

There is no reason for this to become a public matter, with the Church’s bishops not having to argue over it, and the two of them avoiding the public embarassment of actually being refused the Eucharist.
Actually because of their high profile and high office, their bishop should take the lead and meet with them on this delicate matter. The bishop would then follow the guidelines listed by the Holy Father in the document which I quoted in my previous post.

For me, it is most troubling, as a Catholic, and as someone who has worked in the legislative branch, to see politicians who seemingly put their careers and party ideologies ahead of their Church. Luckily, I was able to work for a Methodist who respected my convictions. However, in the final analysis, we are not going to be judged as to whether or not we balanced the budget, got the country out of a recession or ended the wary on Iraq. We are going to be judged, as indicated in next week’s reading from St. Mathew’s Gospel, as to whether or not we took care of the least of our brethren, in this case, the unborn.
 
If any priest knows for a fact that someone has committed mortal sin, and has not been given Absolution, it is their duty to prevent profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. This goes for a pro-choice politician as well as a radical conservative capitalist that, say, oppresses his workers and pays them less than 10 cents a day.

That is if they know for a FACT or a reasonably certain. If they are unsure, they should err on the side of giving the person Communion, and let the sin be on another, rather than on them for denying a properly disposed Catholic a sacrament.
 
Re: Should the Church deny Pelosi and Biden the Eucharist?

In a word - YES!!

These folks have made this a public issue by discussing it publicly, as well as sharing their misinformed interpretations of Church dogma. In doing so, they are knowingly and willingly “contributing to the delinquency” of other Catholics. One way or another, they need to be made to know and understand the significance of their actions!!!

Hate the sin, but love the sinner - until the sinner begins to drag down other souls along with them, not to mention the support being given to those who murder our unborn children.
 
I still fail to see why this is our matter to discuss.

Were any of you interested in Speaker Pelosi’s record when she was just a Congresswoman? VP-Elect Biden’s when he was a Senator?

Their positions on the matter are the responsibility of their constituents (Which is now all of us in the case of Biden) and their Bishop’s. It is not for any of the faithful to judge the worthiness of anyone to receive Holy Communion.
 
I still fail to see why this is our matter to discuss.

Were any of you interested in Speaker Pelosi’s record when she was just a Congresswoman? VP-Elect Biden’s when he was a Senator?

Their positions on the matter are the responsibility of their constituents (Which is now all of us in the case of Biden) and their Bishop’s. It is not for any of the faithful to judge the worthiness of anyone to receive Holy Communion.
I’ve been of the opinion that their bishop has been way too lax given the openness of their position on abortion.
 
Raymond Arroyo was asking the Bishops, which were guests, whether or not the Church should deny the Eucharist to Pelosi, Biden, and other Catholic politicians who support abortion.
Uh, yes, if that’s what they decide.

It’s between the proper authority and the person in question, of course, but if the Church decides that they should be publicly called on the carpet, then that is the proper action.

No one is suggesting that the “improper authorities” (we laity) should usurp the proper authority in these matters, but if the proper authority decides to sanction them such, then they should be “allowed” to do so.

(( D’Uh! ))

:shamrock2:
 
It’s disheartening when we can’t look to our prelates for guidance. All this two-stepping does nothing to bring the unity in Christ which is our strength.

Give us the facts and let the chips fall where they may. If that means that some will choose career over Church, then let them go with our prayers that they will repent and return. To identify the issue as the apex of our day, then vacillate when prescribed remedies exist, is divisive.
 
I’ve been of the opinion that their bishop has been way too lax given the openness of their position on abortion.
Talk to the bishop about it…but MusicMan is right. It’s not our call.
 
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
 
Politicians, particularly high profile ones like Pelosi and Biden, cause confusion and lead many astray by misrepresenting the Catholic Church’s positions on abortion and/or claiming to be a good practicing Catholic in the state of grace while openly and strongly promoting abortion by voting for its permissive availability and publicly speaking about how important a “right” it is. This easily causes confusion among non-Catholics, who see disunity, confusion, and a lack of a principled stand among the faithful of the Catholic Church. It also even causes confusion among Catholics who have become increasingly secularized in the U.S., those who place a lot of emphasis on the role of government in welfare, encouraging them to justify support of abortion as a compromise for other things they desire the government to do.

Allowing these politicians to continue on their course without publicly refuting them aggravates and allows the aforementioned scandals to continue. In order to repent and redress the scandal and harm they cause, politicians must not only become Pro-Life in their voting practice, but also in their advocacy; they must publicly renounce any position that they previously held in favor of abortion.

As the Church has prescribed, pro-abortion Catholic politicians should be confronted first privately, then publicly, and if they still do not repent, be denied communion. What then if these methods do not bring about a change in public position? What if they continue to spout justifications and claim they can be “devout Catholics” while publicly advocating for abortion?

Matthew 18: 11-14, Cor 5:3 key phrases being: “If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector,” and “Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed [adultery, but how much worse is enabling abortion?] should be expelled from your midst.”

It is tragic, and should not be taken lightly, but the evil of abortion is so grave and systemic in our Western societies that it is becoming increasingly clear that grave measures bust be taken to stop it. I do not see any other option, after private and public counsel and public denial of communion, than to excommunicate a person who persists in unrepentant public advocacy for abortion.

How can we be clear about the systemic evil of abortion, how can we seek mercy and justice for the unborn, if we allow those complicit in their murder to speak as if they were in communion with Christ? How can we stand for Christ if we refuse to censure those who so grievously harm His innocents, allowing them to call themselves “of Christ?” To allow them to, with our consent, call themselves by His name is a slander and blasphemy against Christ that WE become complicit in by our consent.

How can we be clear about the Church’s position if we continue to allow these people in our midst to claim to be Catholic, to the continued scandal and delusion of the public?

All Catholics need to know that the seriousness of abortion is so great that persisting in blatant public support of it without repentance is grounds for formal recognition of excommunication. Merely holding to a false teaching privately is error but not heresy; publicly advocating that sin and falsehood, enabling it, IS heresy, and grounds for excommunication. How much more so is all this in reference to abortion, which is not merely a major point of doctrine that harms the unity of Catholic Truth, but also the actual murder of defenseless innocents?

Please let me know if and why you do not agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top