Should the Church deny Pelosi and Biden the Eucharist?

[Scottgun]

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.

Ok, then it shouldn’t be too hard to pick out an example of a response in this thread where the poster behaved as such and show how they did.

 

[Cory_G]

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.

We love you as a brother MusicMan but your comments have been distracting.

We all acknowledge that our discussion does not have authority of this thread’s subject. We all acknowledge that only the Church hierarchy is in a position to make the final determination.

We are here discussing our opinions on the issues, nothing more.

I ask you kindly to participate in the thread’s topic, but not take the thread off topic.

 

[MusicMan]

9, 12, 15, and 17 for starters.

 

[Scottgun]

9, 12, 15, and 17 for starters.

A list of numbers is not an argument. Show exactly you come to the conclusion that they think they are above the bishops or other Church authority.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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

Biden has stated on several occasions, that he personally is opposed to abortion.

He has a mixed vote on abortion issues, and much of it has to do with political gymnastics of the legislation.

Jim

 

[benedictgal]

Biden has stated on several occasions, that he personally is opposed to abortion.

He has a mixed vote on abortion issues, and much of it has to do with political gymnastics of the legislation.

Jim

Being personally opposed to abortion and voting in favor of it are two entirely different things. You are either for one and against the other or against one and for the other. People who straddle the fence are in a precarious situation because they may fall off and land on the wrong side. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal

Being personally opposed to abortion and voting in favor of it are two entirely different things.

He hasn’t actually voted for it.

You are either for one and against the other or against one and for the other. People who straddle the fence are in a precarious situation because they may fall off and land on the wrong side. You can’t have it both ways.

As I’ve been trying to say, the votes he took were on pieces of legislation that are not precise in wording when it comes to stopping abortion.

Also, keep in mind, because of the Roe V Wade decision by the SOCTUS, much of the anti-abortion legislation that has been written over the past 30 years, would not pass constitutional reveiw.

Many of the politicians know this and play to the political base of their parties, with no intention of actually stopping or promoting abortion.

.

Jim

 

[MusicMan]

The content of their posts leads me to this conclusion.

I don’t see the purpose in any thread that discusses what our clerical leadership should be doing about the actions of others. Jesus taught to worry about the plank in our own eyes before the toothpick in our neighbor’s. A thread like this serves no purpose except to question the judgement of the relevant bishops.

I think Speaker Pelosi and VP-Elect Biden’s Bishops should make a decision, and think the rest of us should be concerned with our own worthiness to receive the Sacrament.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal

He hasn’t actually voted for it.

As I’ve been trying to say, the votes he took were on pieces of legislation that are not precise in wording when it comes to stopping abortion.

Also, keep in mind, because of the Roe V Wade decision by the SOCTUS, much of the anti-abortion legislation that has been written over the past 30 years, would not pass constitutional reveiw.

Many of the politicians know this and play to the political base of their parties, with no intention of actually stopping or promoting abortion.

Jim

But, their votes still allow for abortions to happen, do they not, all in the name of “choice”? Have we become so anestitized to the point that we can’t see that the word “choice” is simply a mask for “abortion”? This is relativism at its worst.

 

[Scottgun]

The content of their posts leads me to this conclusion.

I don’t see the purpose in any thread that discusses what our clerical leadership should be doing about the actions of others. Jesus taught to worry about the plank in our own eyes before the toothpick in our neighbor’s. A thread like this serves no purpose except to question the judgement of the relevant bishops.

I think Speaker Pelosi and VP-Elect Biden’s Bishops should make a decision, and think the rest of us should be concerned with our own worthiness to receive the Sacrament.

Yes, well. It looks like your ox is being gored and you decided to level a unjust smear and won’t defend it or retract it.

 

[MusicMan]

Also, keep in mind, because of the Roe V Wade decision by the SOCTUS, much of the anti-abortion legislation that has been written over the past 30 years, would not pass constitutional reveiw.

Roe v. Wade interprets the 14th Amendment in such a way that as a matter of law, rights begin at birth, and thus life doesn’t begin until one can live outside the womb. As a matter of law, life begins at viability.

Because the USSC interpreted the 14th this way, there are two options to make abortion illegal in this country… The first would be for a case to go before the USSC to change the legal interpretation of Roe v. Wade, although I don’t know how such a case would come about.

The second option is to introduce a 28th Amendment essentially changing the legal definition of when life begins, and redefining the parts of the 14th that were used in Roe v. Wade.

Regardless of what was actually intended by those who created and ratified the 14th Amendment, it has been taken advantage of to legalize abortion. We can only win a fight against the legality of abortion by working within that constraint.

 

[Arandur]

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.

Jim, “reproductive health” is usually code for “abortion” in the parlance of pro-abortionists. Who proposed that bill? You insinuated the Republicans put forward legislation that was deceptive and intended to divide, not to pass. Was that bill supposed to be one of those examples?

Please provide an example that does what you say it does. Also please accept the reality that the pro-abortionists have terribly manipulated “health” of the mother clauses to be a total exception, since it can apply to headaches or emotional distress over the pregnancy. The only possible reason to attempt an abortion is if there is sound medical reason that the mother is very likely to die if the abortion is not performed. In such a case, the baby will usually die anyway, but even if it were possible to save the child, choosing between saving the child or saving the mother should be placed in the hands of mothers or powers of attorney. That occurrence is almost ridiculously rare, however, to my knowledge.

There is more to the criteria the Church has applied than the vote you mentioned. Most of these Democrat politicians have pledged openly to abortionist groups and to their constituencies to protect the availability of abortions. That is absolutely impermissible; that is when the bishop needs to meet with them and start going through this process. Such a position should not be allowed to endure long before the politicians are called out publicly and denied communion. Joe Biden fits this bill. He uses the common but fallacious and unacceptable dodge that one can be “personally opposed” to abortion, but believe that it should be allowed by law and act to preserve the legality of abortion. Given what the Church has said, how can any Catholic possibly defend or take that position? You cannot absolve Joe Biden with it, certainly.

 

[Arandur]

Roe v. Wade interprets the 14th Amendment in such a way that as a matter of law, rights begin at birth, and thus life doesn’t begin until one can live outside the womb. As a matter of law, life begins at viability.

Because the USSC interpreted the 14th this way, there are two options to make abortion illegal in this country… The first would be for a case to go before the USSC to change the legal interpretation of Roe v. Wade, although I don’t know how such a case would come about.

The second option is to introduce a 28th Amendment essentially changing the legal definition of when life begins, and redefining the parts of the 14th that were used in Roe v. Wade.

Regardless of what was actually intended by those who created and ratified the 14th Amendment, it has been taken advantage of to legalize abortion. We can only win a fight against the legality of abortion by working within that constraint.

MM and Jim, have you missed that many pieces of legislation have been introduced to try to do just what you are suggesting? They have in fact won rulings by the Supreme Court allowing restrictions on abortions in many cases (partial birth abortion bans, education and notification laws, born alive protection acts, etc.), allowing some state restrictions in particular. Legislation has also been passed and proposed in an attempt to bring the matter before the Supreme Court again. The CO Personhood Amendment and SD abortion ban amendment were designed just for that purpose. Your claims are plainly false and misguided. Are they derived from you dislike of the Republican Party, and desire to justify support for pro-abortion Democrats on the basis that Republicans have not been successful enough in defending life?

That just doesn’t make sense or stand up to any logical scrutiny.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictgal

But, their votes still allow for abortions to happen, do they not, all in the name of “choice”?

Not necessarily. Roe V Wade was decided by the USSC. Any votes they take now can not change that decision and if in violation of it, would be thrown out.

The most they can do is not fund abortion, but then we have the issue once again, where funding is for across the board health issues, and doesn’t isolate abortion, because if it did, it would be in violation of the Roe V Wade decision.

Have we become so anestitized to the point that we can’t see that the word “choice” is simply a mask for “abortion”? This is relativism at its worst.

I use to think this way, until I learned the hard way from experience, that not all abortions are done as a matter of inconvenience. There are many cases where the health and life of the mother come into play. In these cases, it is a choice that the mother and her doctor should make, not some government bureaucrat.

The first line of defense for the unborn will be where it should’ve been from the beginning, with the mother. Let the mother know what she has growing inside of her, and her moral responsibility.

In the end, if not for the number of women seeking abortions, it would not be a profitable business and abortion clinics would shut down.

Jim

 

[Petite]

FWIW:

In terms of denying Holy Eucharist to politicians who are pro-choice, I have very mixed feelings on it.

First, I HATE using a sacrament as a political football. If it were so cut and dry–i.e., that the ‘other side’ was 100 % pro-life/100% anti-abortion, it would not be a political game. However, I do not believe that the majority of so-called pro-life politicians or even the Republican Party (in spite of their platform statement on this)are any more pro life than Peolosi and Biden or the Democratic Party. This is all a big game to garner votes–on the part of both sides, IMHO.

I have not seen any aggressive actions on the part of pro-life politicians/pro-life Republican Party to overturn Roe v Wade–which, would merely throw the question back to the states anyway. Legal abortion still would available in this country–although probably not to the extent that it is available now.

There seems to be political pandering to those of us who believe abortion should be outlawed. I don’t care how many pro-life Supreme Court Justices are appointed to the Supreme Court–there has to be a case that is very similar to Roe v. Wade to over turn it. What are the chances of THAT happening any time soon?

Look at the recent pro-life initiatives that failed:

Colorado: defeated nearly 3 to 1–defining a fertilized egg as a person,

South Dakota’s Measure 11 --failed by 56% of voters–the initiative that would have set in motion a future challenge to Roe v. Wade if passed.

California’s Proposition 4 – voted down by 52% to 48% --this would have required parental notification for girls under 18 seeking an abortion and mandated a 48-hour waiting period before the procedure.

We’re missing the boat here–punishing Catholic politicians by withholding Eucharist from them–how is that going to change the minds and hearts?

The punitive approach is not working–how long will the pro-life movement keep this approach up while not gaining the ground we REALLY need: move the minds and hearts of people to believe that life is sacred from conception to natural death?

I HOPE I am not off topic here, but it seems to me that instead of moving the nation to a pro-life position, we are exacerbating the situation–splitting the ‘factions’ into camps. Who wins here? No one, IMHO…

Since our politicians are governing for all of their constituents–not just Catholics, they are required to uphold the law–even the bad laws. I don’t believe they can pass laws that would stand up to the scrutiny of a constitutional challenge–as things are now…(otherwise, why didn’t the pro-life Republican Party have already done that when they held the majorities in both houses of Congress AND the White House?)

Our politicians CAN work to make life better for expectant mothers and fathers. They can support efforts to provide expectant mothers good health care for themselves and for their children once they are born.

Why DO women choose abortion? Not because they can–women do not become pregant just so they can exercise their constitutional ‘right’ to have an abortion–at least I HOPE not!

We need to find a better way to motivate our politicians short of denial of the sacraments.

Perhaps, the Eucharist is too readily available to Catholics–I am sure there are many who receive Eucharist spiritually unprepared --but that’s a topic for another thread, I suppose!

 

[MusicMan]

MM and Jim, have you missed that many pieces of legislation have been introduced to try to do just what you are suggesting? They have in fact won rulings by the Supreme Court allowing restrictions on abortions in many cases (partial birth abortion bans, education and notification laws, born alive protection acts, etc.), allowing some state restrictions in particular.

As I understand Roe v. Wade, late-term/partial birth abortion was restricted in the USSC’s ruling. Any of the other legislation you have cited does not violate the USSC’s interpretation of the 14th, and thus stands up to Constitutional scrutiny by that body.

Legislation has also been passed and proposed in an attempt to bring the matter before the Supreme Court again. The CO Personhood Amendment and SD abortion ban amendment were designed just for that purpose.

As I said, I wouldn’t know how to bring the matter back before the USSC, but the notion that the USSC can just go and reverse previous cases is erroneous. Were these laws you cite recent? Have they had a chance to be litigated all the way to the USSC for a ruling?

Your claims are plainly false and misguided.

I’m not making any false or misguided claims. I’m attempting to explain how Pro-Life can bring about the end of legal abortion.

Are they derived from you dislike of the Republican Party, and desire to justify support for pro-abortion Democrats on the basis that Republicans have not been successful enough in defending life?

I do not believe that the Republicans have made enough effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, the way in which abortion was legalized in this country happened in such a way that we have relatively few legal options, and I am of the mind that Pro-Life is 1.) Not aware of them and 2.) Not pursuing them.

Regardless of anything else, a 28th Amendment that defines life as beginning at conception would overturn Roe v. Wade, and while it probably wouldn’t bring the matter to a close, we’d at least finally have a major victory on Pro-Life, and we would actually have a decision on the matter made by majority rule, which is how the government is supposed to work.

Furthermore, if the above 28th occurred, it would make things a lot easier for the Bishops to deny Pro-Choice politicians the Sacrament. VP-Elect Biden saying he would do everything in his power to repeal that mythical 28th Amendment is far more heinous that voting against legislation that restrict abortion (regardless of his reason).

 

[benedictgal]

However, to those who do not like seeing the Most Holy Eucharist handled like a political football, I respectfully submit that the ones who are at fault are those Catholic public officeholders who support “choice” despite the fact that they are going contrary to the teachings of the Church. They are the ones who have placed themselves in that position, not the Church. The sad fact also holds true for women have had abortions and those who perform them. They are the ones who have placed themselves outside of the Church because they have freely chosen to disobey the teachings of the Church.

Moses told Ancient Israel that he set the paths of life and death before them. Life means to follow the law; death means to live apart from that law. LIkewise, the Church has drawn the proverbial line in the sand.

Jim, you cannot use the Supreme Court ruling to justify voting for “choice” just because the Court upheld its constitutionality. The Court did not take away the right of any lawmaker to vote against legislation supporting abortion. The problem is that many Catholics who are public officials would rather hide behind the guise of party platform and personal belief than to take a moral stand and call a spade a spade.

 

[Arandur]

We’re missing the boat here–punishing Catholic politicians by withholding Eucharist from them–how is that going to change the minds and hearts?

The punitive approach is not working–how long will the pro-life movement keep this approach up while not gaining the ground we REALLY need: move the minds and hearts of people to believe that life is sacred from conception to natural death?

You miss the point. Withholding Eucharist is not a punishment. It is a recognition of the lack of communion that person has with Christ, the distance he himself has chosen by rejecting Christ. It actually instructs and protects that person from performing sacrilege and calling judgment upon themselves for taking Eucharist in a state of grave sin. It also shows our own respect for Christ by recognizing His will and commandments to respect life by NOT defiling His Body and Blood through a false offering of communion. And for the cause itself, it instructs individuals of the seriousness of the issue and fights against confusion about the Church’s stance on the issue.

If you disagree with my assessment, please tell me why.

As for Pro-Life politicians and factions and so forth, I encourage you to take a look at legislative history with an open mind. Pro-abortionists have attempted to pass laws making abortion rights more unrestricted. Pro-Lifers have proposed and sometimes successfully passed laws limiting abortions or requiring notifications, education, waiting periods to make better informed decisions, etc.

Can you say that is not valid progress, and that Pro-Life politicians who have supported those measures (mostly Republicans) were not acting in a Pro-Life manner to support the limitations and oppose the unrestricted access, and the pro-"choice"rs (mostly Democrats) voting opposite were not complicit in abortion?

The voting choice and decisions are not so difficult as you and some others here make them out to be. Some have been remarkably clear. Anyone who supports the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” or opposes Born Alive Infant Protection Acts is clearly on the wrong side of life and cannot be supported with a vote. In the latter case, there isn’t even a question of the life or health of the mother after a child has been delivered, so this is outright infanticide.

 

[Arandur]

As I understand Roe v. Wade, late-term/partial birth abortion was restricted in the USSC’s ruling. Any of the other legislation you have cited does not violate the USSC’s interpretation of the 14th, and thus stands up to Constitutional scrutiny by that body.

But these were Pro-Life measures supported by Pro-Life politicians. Thus the Pro-Life politicians were being faithful to their claim, and they did do some good to limit abortions and to, through these efforts, work to argue for life and inform peoples’ consciences.

As I said, I wouldn’t know how to bring the matter back before the USSC, but the notion that the USSC can just go and reverse previous cases is erroneous. Were these laws you cite recent? Have they had a chance to be litigated all the way to the USSC for a ruling?

They were proposed state constitutional amendments in this last election cycle. They were attempts to GET them to the SCOTUS. Amendments are one way. Legislation is another, and that requires Pro-Life politicians who will support the measures and pass the laws so they will get to the SCOTUS. That’s why we have to support Pro-Life politicians.

I’m not making any false or misguided claims. I’m attempting to explain how Pro-Life can bring about the end of legal abortion. I do not believe that the Republicans have made enough effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, the way in which abortion was legalized in this country happened in such a way that we have relatively few legal options, and I am of the mind that Pro-Life is 1.) Not aware of them and 2.) Not pursuing them.

And I just pointed out that your strategies are already being followed and have been for quite some time. Some progress has been made. That is why I’ve said your claims are false, and I am surprised that you are unaware of the many, many efforts to do just what you are saying. The Pro-Life movement has tried outright bans but not had the support, so we have tried incremental restrictions and bans in order to keep the argument for life alive in the public and in government, change minds, and challenge abortion laws. Consider how long it has taken to get people to understand and oppose partial birth abortion and how monstrous it is. And now it is widely accepted even among pro-choicers as being a heinous practice. We have forced them to consider what they are doing, and to now recognize that at some point in the womb life begins. This strategy has worked at least to some degree, and I believe is one of many that can continue to work. For one thing, it does force people to consider when life begins, which is the central issue. If it begins in the Third Trimester, by what non-arbitrary criteria? That let’s us explain further that there is no way to define a point when a human life begins other than at the moment of conception.

Regardless of anything else, a 28th Amendment that defines life as beginning at conception would overturn Roe v. Wade, and while it probably wouldn’t bring the matter to a close, we’d at least finally have a major victory on Pro-Life, and we would actually have a decision on the matter made by majority rule, which is how the government is supposed to work.

Furthermore, if the above 28th occurred, it would make things a lot easier for the Bishops to deny Pro-Choice politicians the Sacrament. VP-Elect Biden saying he would do everything in his power to repeal that mythical 28th Amendment is far more heinous that voting against legislation that restrict abortion (regardless of his reason).

Do you think that a proposed 28th Amendment is the only thing we should pursue? Do you actually think in the current climate that it would pass? No, we need to do what we can in the meantime to win arguments and change minds and hearts, to limit the damage of abortion while we can, to get politicians into office who will defend life and appoint and support judges who have the wisdom, respect for life, and respect for the constitution necessary to finally get the right to life recognized in our country.

To do all that, we MUST vote for pro-life politicians, and that is why the Church places such emphasis on it. In fact, because of how our government works and the power associated with the majority party, I will go farther than the bishops and say that until the U.S. recognizes the right to life in law, and particularly when SCOTUS judges are on the line (in presidential elections), we must support the party that has the most pro-life politicians and the platform to defend life. Life trumps all other issues. So vote for and support Pro-Life Democrats in the primaries and then whichever is the stronger Pro-Life candidate in the general election.

 

[MusicMan]

As the US is not a Catholic country, and it is based on the principles of majority rule. If the majority believes that life does not begin at conception, why should we be using the similar nefarious means to make aboriton illegal as were used to make it legal in the first place?

If the majority would not raftify a 28th Amendment redefining life, then we, the probably minority … well … that’s the way our country works.