Stopping public figures from receiving Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter thistle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thistle

Guest
I know there is a thread somewhere on this but I can’t find it and I wanted to ask a few things to the people who do not want public figures to receive communion.
Before I ask my questions I would like to point out that I am against same sex marriage, abortion, etc.

First, are you only against Catholic politicians who support abortion, same sex marriage etc or are you also against those who do not declare support but do not speak out against it?
Where would you draw the line. Surely a mortal sin is a mortal sin. If a politician is an alcoholic or compulsive gambler would you also want them not to receive communion.
Second, why would you stop them (or anyone) from receiving communion. To receive communion you must be in a state of grace and would have been to Confession thereby having your sins forgiven. You are then allowed to receive communion. How do you know that when a politician goes forward to receive communion that he or she has not been to Confession? Its not for us or the priest at Mass to judge that. Surely anyone stepping up for Communion must be allowed to receive it unless that person is known to be a non-catholic.
You seem to be implying that because the sin is repeated they should be out but didn’t Jesus tell us to forgive people 70 times 7, in other words no matter how often they sin, if they are sorry then they must be forgiven.
 
40.png
thistle:
First, are you only against Catholic politicians who support abortion, same sex marriage etc or are you also against those who do not declare support but do not speak out against it?

Only the ones who deliberately support evil and try to convince us that it is good.

Where would you draw the line. Surely a mortal sin is a mortal sin. If a politician is an alcoholic or compulsive gambler would you also want them not to receive communion.

Last I checked, having an alcohol or gambling problem did not equal mortal sin. Actively supporting evil is not the same as having a personal battle with it.

Second, why would you stop them (or anyone) from receiving communion. To receive communion you must be in a state of grace and would have been to Confession thereby having your sins forgiven. You are then allowed to receive communion.

Most of these public figures come out and tell people (in newspapers, on tv etc) that they are Catholic AND support evil and should be allowed to receive communion.

They do not say that they have changed their positions or have any intention of doing so. Receiving communion becomes more of a political game to them…“see? look what I can do!”

How do you know that when a politician goes forward to receive communion that he or she has not been to Confession?

I don’t.

Its not for us or the priest at Mass to judge that. Surely anyone stepping up for Communion must be allowed to receive it unless that person is known to be a non-catholic.

Last I checked, priests were allowed to use their discretion. I believe many priests in the Orthodox Church will not give communion to people they do not recognize because they cannot be sure that person is in a state of grace.

Hopefully someone can provide documents stating what the priest is required to do…

You seem to be implying that because the sin is repeated they should be out but didn’t Jesus tell us to forgive people 70 times 7, in other words no matter how often they sin, if they are sorry then they must be forgiven.

You said the magic phrase…if they are sorry then they must be forgiven…

this is not a matter of falling into sin, repenting, being forgiven, and doing it again…

this is a matter of choosing to go directly against the Church’s teachings, scandalizing the public, and demanding Communion.

I sure don’t want anyone who is in a state of grace to be refused Communion. But our Church needs to take a stand against these dissenters and protect the flock.

Malia
Click to expand...
 
Feanaro's Wife:
Okay. I’m not saying I necessarily disagree with you but in the other thread, which I still can’t find, I couldn’t see clear reasons for the objections like you have just given.

By the way, excessive drinking and excessive gambling are construed as mortal sins by the Church. This in stated in the book I have called How to make a good Confession and this book has both Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.
 
If they want to recieve communion, they should speak out against abortion. It is scandalous for them to say that they won’t vote against abortion and then say they are Catholic and should be able to recieve communion. Young adults/children hear that and think it is alright.
 
First, are you only against Catholic politicians who support abortion, same sex marriage etc or are you also against those who do not declare support but do not speak out against it?
Where would you draw the line. Surely a mortal sin is a mortal sin. If a politician is an alcoholic or compulsive gambler would you also want them not to receive communion.
Click to expand...
The Church is against anyone in mortal sin receiving Communion. Most people don’t walk around saying “The Church says this but I’m not for it” when they are sinning. They are what the Church calls “public, obstinate sinners”. They are known to not be contrite about their actions. This cannot be said with all sinners.
How do you know that when a politician goes forward to receive communion that he or she has not been to Confession?
Click to expand...
The public, obstinate sinner also brings scandal to the Church which, in itself a sin, must be rectified before they can receive Communion.
Its not for us or the priest at Mass to judge that. Surely anyone stepping up for Communion must be allowed to receive it unless that person is known to be a non-catholic.
Click to expand...
Once again, one cannot set aside the sin of scandal. If they have not publicly renounced their position, then the scandal still exists.
 
Here is a real case history of implementation of the Church’s prohibition against politicians who are publicly notorious for their promotion of abortion, euthanasia, cloning, or fetal experimentation…
Click to expand...
The paper was eager to reveal to the world that the state representative, who had voted in the Legislature for pro-abortion legislation was a “practicing Catholic.” In the course of the interview, as reported in the newspaper, the state representative admitted being a practicing Roman Catholic who felt justified in supporting abortion on demand…
Click to expand...
Recognizing the scandal to the faithful which the publication of this interview would cause, I realized that it was my duty, as ordinary of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, to write to the state representative. I pointed out to him that grave scandal had been given in that interview. I proposed a meeting to discuss the matter with a view to obtaining a retraction which could be published. [For the text of the letter, see the first sidebar…
Click to expand...
I, Rene H. Gracida, Bishop of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, am issuing this decree to you, _________, concerning the matter of your advocacy of “abortion rights” as reported in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times dated May 20, 1993 and January 30, 1994. I am distressed that you have not responded to my two letters dated June 3, 1993 and February 7, 1994 (copies of which are attached to this letter)…
Click to expand...
As Bishop of this Diocese and the Shepherd of those entrusted to my care by the Lord and by the successor of Saint Peter, I have the responsibility to resolve this serious scandal which your public position on abortion has created. Having failed to obtain a retraction from you, I regret that now I am compelled by the pastoral good of the local Church and for the salvation of souls to take the following action…
Missing Page Redirect | Catholic Culture”]Missing Page Redirect | Catholic Culture
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top