Toronto Star Vs. Vatican On Communion for Politicians

[harinkj]

fix:

Bishop Burke has said the reason he finally chose to speak out about this issue is because so many lay people called, emailed, sent letters, etc to him telling him to take action. I pray more folks make their needs known and that Bishops will be faithful to canon law and to the Truth and put an end to this scandal.

I think you really have come accross the real truth in this. And it is in fact why so many people who are not active chruch members of any church resent so much the religious right or any fundamentalists or even active, but not radical, church members. And that is because so many church members do not spend much effort on their own salvation, they spend virtually all of their energies telling other people how to live.

“Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone…” is really how it should be.

Hey, but keep it your way. Just don’t whine when we see few Catholics in any position of influence except the Cafateria Catholics who will thrive.

• kathie :bowdown:

 

[Penny_Plain]

dennisknapp:

The Church withholds communion in order to protect the soul of the Pro-abortion politicians, not to make communion political.

If the Church were to withhold communion from everyone who was pro-abortion for the purposes of protecting their souls, this would make sense.

It doesn’t.

Therefore, if the Church decides to withhold communion from publicly pro-abortion politicians, we can conclude one of two things:

1. Of those Catholics who are publicly pro-abortion, only the politicians have souls that need protection.
2. The Church is politicizing the sacrament of communion.

Pick one.

 

[Confiteor]

Penny Plain:

If the Church were to withhold communion from everyone who was pro-abortion for the purposes of protecting their souls, this would make sense.

It doesn’t.

Therefore, if the Church decides to withhold communion from publicly pro-abortion politicians, we can conclude one of two things:

1. Of those Catholics who are publicly pro-abortion, only the politicians have souls that need protection.
2. The Church is politicizing the sacrament of communion.

Pick one.

It isn’t that simple…people in public life have a different responsibility than Joe or Josephine in the pew. For one, the politician is more likely to influence the legislation in this area and his high profile means that if he sins publicly in what he does or says, people are watching and listening. So the level of “cooperation” in the abortion is different (looking at the moral theology behind it) and there is an element of scandal that probably isn’t there when Joe Catholic quietly commits mortal sin. While I don’t think there is any question that the higher moral ground calls for less tolerance for this sort of “Catholic” politician, I agree there would be political fallout. In short, I’m glad not to be a bishop or a priest and I have refused to become a EMHC.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Confiteor:

It isn’t that simple…people in public life have a different responsibility than Joe or Josephine in the pew.

So let’s complicate it.

Suppose the most famous athlete in the United States is (a) Catholic and (b) vocally pro-abortion. (No, I don’t have anyone in mind.) Is that person’s public profile and ability to influence public opinion greater or less than some obscure senator from a backwater state?

My personal opinion is that excluding anyone from Communion is foolishness. Jesus can take care of His own dignity; he doesn’t need Bishop Burke standing at the altar saying, “you, you, you, not you, you, you, you come here and let’s talk, etc.”

But if we’re going to ban Catholics who take public positions on abortion that are contrary to Church teaching, it seems hypocritical to stop with politicians.

For that matter, it seems hypocritical to stop with abortion. Maybe we should ban from communion every Catholic who publicly states that she thinks women should be priests?

And why stop with opinions? Why not ban from communion every person who has committed a public sin unless they have a note from their confessor saying that they were granted absolution on such and such a day?

Once you start down this road, there’s no good way to stop. Right now, the decision to receive or not receive Communion is left up to the individual. Personal responsibility and all that. What’s broken that we need to fix it?

 

[Superstar905]

Saw this in the Toronto Star ragarding this:

Misinterpreting teachings of Catholic Church

**With this Vatican, all’s fair in faith and war

**Column, Oct. 11.

It’s not every day that a columnist, in a failed attempt at humour and satire, manages to misinterpret the teachings of Catholicism, speculate on something the Pope is speculating about doing (at least, according to Slinger’s speculation), and then equate the alleged deliberations with, of all things, the war in Iraq.

The situation of a Catholic politician is no different fundamentally than that of any other Catholic, in that those who explicitly reject key Church doctrines are excommunicating themselves. The long-established teaching of the Church is that such persons should excuse themselves from Holy Communion until they have had a change of heart, and received absolution after a sincere confession.

From a political perspective, it would not be seen as scandalous for Jack Layton to remove a Member of Parliament from the NDP caucus if that MP chose to advocate, for example, for more privately funded health care.

Slinger seems alarmed by the response of faithful Catholics when a professed member of the Catholic Church acts in a public and flagrant opposition to church teaching.

Where was his outcry against our Prime Minister when Joe Comuzzi was forced to resign from cabinet when he followed his conscience and opposed the same-sex marriage bill?

It is not surprising that a member of the media would threaten to spike the charitable benefits of many Catholic or other religious institutions in order to force their adherents to adopt their own orthodoxy on this issue. It is a rather limited measure of tolerance.

Philip Horgan, President,

and Joanne McGarry,

Executive Director, Catholic Civil Rights League, Toronto

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**General Notice:

Regarding quoted texts/materials/references to the threads:

Please review Forum rules and the help sticky,
Helpful Hints on Posting:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=72808
Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answers Forums
**

 

[dennisknapp]

Penny Plain:

So let’s complicate it.

Suppose the most famous athlete in the United States is (a) Catholic and (b) vocally pro-abortion. (No, I don’t have anyone in mind.) Is that person’s public profile and ability to influence public opinion greater or less than some obscure senator from a backwater state?

My personal opinion is that excluding anyone from Communion is foolishness. Jesus can take care of His own dignity; he doesn’t need Bishop Burke standing at the altar saying, “you, you, you, not you, you, you, you come here and let’s talk, etc.”

But if we’re going to ban Catholics who take public positions on abortion that are contrary to Church teaching, it seems hypocritical to stop with politicians.

For that matter, it seems hypocritical to stop with abortion. Maybe we should ban from communion every Catholic who publicly states that she thinks women should be priests?

And why stop with opinions? Why not ban from communion every person who has committed a public sin unless they have a note from their confessor saying that they were granted absolution on such and such a day?

Once you start down this road, there’s no good way to stop. Right now, the decision to receive or not receive Communion is left up to the individual. Personal responsibility and all that. What’s broken that we need to fix it?

The bishops and priest can refuse to give communion, as we have seen with Bishop Burke.

Do you have no concern for the soul of the person receiving communion? Say know someone, and you also know this person has committed a mortal sin, would you encourage this person to receive communion? Let’s also say this person has no intension of changing or of ever going to confession. What would you do? How could you best serve their soul? What if their soul was your responsibility?

This is the position bishops and the Pope are in concerning those in public office who publically support gravely sinful issues.

Peace

 

[Penny_Plain]

dennisknapp:

Do you have no concern for the soul of the person receiving communion? Say know someone, and you also know this person has committed a mortal sin, would you encourage this person to receive communion? Let’s also say this person has no intension of changing or of ever going to confession. What would you do? How could you best serve their soul? What if their soul was your responsibility?

Of course I do.

But I am not so arrogant to presume that I know what’s best for that person or how to change them.

You seem to come down on the side of banning communion for all persons known to have committed a mortal sin. I disagree with that position, but at least it’s intellectually honest.

I think the position of banning some public sinners but not others based on their occupation or the specific nature of their sin is not intellectually honest. It is especially dishonest when one advocates banning only politicians (and, for that matter, only politicians who have committed one type of sin), then turns around and claims there is nothing political about it.

We are talking about adults, here. What the Church should do is teach us what is sin. It should teach us the consequences of sin, and the obligations one has when one is in a state of sin. Then, it should step aside and let us, as adults, decide what to do.

The alternative is the Communion Police.

 

[fix]

**General Notice:

Regarding quoted texts/materials/references to the threads:

Please review Forum rules and the help sticky,
Helpful Hints on Posting:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=72808**
Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answers Forums

Sorry, my fault. I am trying to find the link.

 

[fix]

** Ten questions regarding the denial of the Eucharist.**

** 1] “Why should the Church deny the Eucharist to hundreds of ‘Catholic’ pro abortion politicians?”**

** 2] “If they deny politicians, then shouldn’t they deny all public sinners?”**

** 3] “What about the couple or individual who lives in grave sin ‘privately’ and their Pastor is made aware of their sin? Should their Pastor deny them the Eucharist?”**

More and the replies at:
lifeissues.net/writers/kra/kra_11tenquestions.html

 

[David_Zampino]

Penny Plain:

We are talking about adults, here. What the Church should do is teach us what is sin. It should teach us the consequences of sin, and the obligations one has when one is in a state of sin. Then, it should step aside and let us, as adults, decide what to do.

The alternative is the Communion Police.

I understand your point – but historically, this is never how the Church has operated. Indeed, our generation might well be the first in which the Church has NOT withheld communion when necessary.

Item: In 1st Corinthians, St. Paul orders the church to ban (excommunicate) one of its members who was engaged in public sin/scandal. In 2nd Corinthians, the man has repented, and St. Paul urges his restoration.

Item: In the 4th century, St. Ambrose publically rebuked the Emperor Theodosius for grave sin and denied him the Sacraments until he publically repented and made appropriate restitution.

Item: Throughout the Middle Ages, denying the Sacraments was a not at all uncommon response to grave sin.

Item: In the 20th century, Pope Piux XII excommunicated Presidet Juan Peron of Argentina for grave scandal.

This is not “communion police”. This is the Church exercising Her ministry.

Obviously, a line needs to be drawn somewhere – and I suspect that we all agree on that! We can argue as to where that line should be – but, reasonably, not that the line should not exist at all.

 

[harinkj]

Manifest sinners. If a member of a legislative body votes to support pro-choice laws, i.e. not forcing abortions on people nor participating personally in abortions, why is he a manifest sinner?

Also, if a legislator does not support a bill before a legislative body that outlaws some act that is a mortal sin in the Catholic Church, is he a sinner? For example, must Catholic legislators support bills that would outlaw cohabitation of people who are not married? Must a Catholic legislator support a bill that would make it illegal for any citizen to miss the Catholic mass on holy days of obligation, no matter what church they are a member of?

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[fix]

harinkj:

Manifest sinners. If a member of a legislative body votes to support pro-choice laws, i.e. not forcing abortions on people nor participating personally in abortions, why is he a manifest sinner?

What if the law said one may own a slave , but did not force one to do such a thing? Would that be moral? Who would say such a law was just? There is no way anyone has a right to do such a thing? Only in a confused society like ours would one think allowing such things is legitimate.

Also, if a legislator does not support a bill before a legislative body that outlaws some act that is a mortal sin in the Catholic Church, is he a sinner? For example, must Catholic legislators support bills that would outlaw cohabitation of people who are not married? Must a Catholic legislator support a bill that would make it illegal for any citizen to miss the Catholic mass on holy days of obligation, no matter what church they are a member of?

It is not about Church laws. It is about the natural moral law that everyone may know and is bound to obey.

Fornication, cohabitation, adultery were all illegal until recent history. No Catholic should support such things.

 

[harinkj]

fix:

What if the law said one may own a slave , but did not force one to do such a thing? Would that be moral? Who would say such a law was just? There is no way anyone has a right to do such a thing? Only in a confused society like ours would one think allowing such things is legitimate.

It is not about Church laws. It is about the natural moral law that everyone may know and is bound to obey.

Fornication, cohabitation, adultery were all illegal until recent history. No Catholic should support such things.

I would agree. But what I wonder about is that if a legislator does not vote to outlaw fornication, cohabitation, or adultery he would not be denied communion, yet if he does not vote to outlaw abortion, he may be denied communion.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[Confiteor]

Penny Plain:

So let’s complicate it.

Suppose the most famous athlete in the United States is (a) Catholic and (b) vocally pro-abortion. (No, I don’t have anyone in mind.) Is that person’s public profile and ability to influence public opinion greater or less than some obscure senator from a backwater state?

My personal opinion is that excluding anyone from Communion is foolishness. Jesus can take care of His own dignity; he doesn’t need Bishop Burke standing at the altar saying, “you, you, you, not you, you, you, you come here and let’s talk, etc.”

But if we’re going to ban Catholics who take public positions on abortion that are contrary to Church teaching, it seems hypocritical to stop with politicians.

For that matter, it seems hypocritical to stop with abortion. Maybe we should ban from communion every Catholic who publicly states that she thinks women should be priests?

And why stop with opinions? Why not ban from communion every person who has committed a public sin unless they have a note from their confessor saying that they were granted absolution on such and such a day?

Once you start down this road, there’s no good way to stop. Right now, the decision to receive or not receive Communion is left up to the individual. Personal responsibility and all that. What’s broken that we need to fix it?

One only needs to listen to the news/read the paper to see that there is a lot that is broken, and we do need to fix it. Striving for a better temporal order is part of our mission here and now.
I do agree that it isn’t ONLY Catholic politicians that should be in communion with the Church; and of course, other public figures or even people prominent in a local community can cause scandal. But politicians have a special responsibility because they have the ability to influence the law of the land. That’s why there is more focus on them.

The priests and bishops have a responsibility not to knowingly subject the Eucharist to sacrilege but more importantly, as Archbishop Burke has expressed, bishops have a responsibility to teach and to admonish members of their flocks when necessary. Canon Law 915 calls for those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin … not to be admitted to communion.” When those conditions apply, it is mandated by Church law. The Archbishop is a courageous bishop and a canon lawyer, and his article expressing why he acted as he did is worth reading:
americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=3636&issueID=488

Abortion gets a lot of the focus because it is a foundational life issue; not a single one of the 43+ million babies killed legally in the US since Roe v Wade did anything to deserve their death sentence. In terms of severity and sheer magnitude, it is unique as the Pope and the bishops have pointed out.

I hope you’ll take the time to read this wonderful homily by one of the Arlington priests; it does a far better job of expressing the Church’s teaching and responsibility than I can:
www.saintmaryparish.net/homilies/poumade040530.pdf

God bless.

 

[Confiteor]

** Ten questions regarding the denial of the Eucharist.**

** 1]** “Why should the Church deny the Eucharist to hundreds of ‘Catholic’ pro abortion politicians?”

** 2] “If they deny politicians, then shouldn’t they deny all public sinners?”**

** 3] “What about the couple or individual who lives in grave sin ‘privately’ and their Pastor is made aware of their sin? Should their Pastor deny them the Eucharist?”**

More and the replies at:
lifeissues.net/writers/kra/kra_11tenquestions.html

This is a really excellent article…I don’t think I’ve seen all the issues covered in one place in such a straight forward way. BTW, on the Death Penalty issue that so many get confused with abortion, Archbishop Chaput was on Catholic Answers on Monday, Oct 10th to address the Catholic Understanding of the Death Penalty.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Confiteor:

One only needs to listen to the news/read the paper to see that there is a lot that is broken, and we do need to fix it. Striving for a better temporal order is part of our mission here and now. . . … But politicians have a special responsibility because they have the ability to influence the law of the land. That’s why there is more focus on them.

That’s fine.

Then let’s come out and say that the decision to focus on Catholic politicians is a political decision that the Church has made with the specific intent of causing Catholic politicians to vote in certain ways on certain issues.

The Church can certainly do that, if it wants to. What the Church cannot do and maintain its integrity is focus solely on Catholic politicians and then claim that its actions are not political.

Confiteor:

I do agree that it isn’t ONLY Catholic politicians that should be in communion with the Church; and of course, other public figures or even people prominent in a local community can cause scandal.

The priests and bishops have a responsibility not to knowingly subject the Eucharist to sacrilege but more importantly, as Archbishop Burke has expressed, bishops have a responsibility to teach and to admonish members of their flocks when necessary.

Then why the focus solely on politicians and solely on abortion? I quote the article that somebody posted earlier:

Not only does this canonical discipline c.915 include the estimated 500 so-called ‘Catholic’ pro-abortion politicians in the U.S., but it also includes other manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners such as homosexual couples approaching the Eucharist arm-in-arm or with sodomite rainbow banners over their shoulders, those divorced and ‘remarried’ without benefit of annulment, directors of abortion mills and Planned Parenthood, Mafia figures, drug lords, notorious criminals, couples living openly in fornication or adultery (this is certainly not an exhaustive list of manifest sinners).

If we’re going to ban manifest sinners from receiving Communion, then why the focus on some sinners and some sins? If this is really about the souls of sinners, then doesn’t the Church have an obligation to protect the souls of all manifest sinners? The pro-abortion Catholic politician and the 22-year-old who’s shacked up with her boyfriend are both in mortal sin. Both souls need equal protection, right?

It’s not about the souls of manifest sinners. It certainly doesn’t seem to be about reverence for the Eucharist if some manifest sinners are allowed to receive, but not others. Sacrilege is sacrilege.

Is it about an example to the community? Maybe. But the lesson is that some mortal sins are worse than others, and the lesson many would draw from letting the notorious cohabitator receive but not the politician is that the Church does not frown on cohabitation.

It’s an attempt to influence the votes of Catholic politicians. That’s fine; the Church can do that if it wants to. (If Haliburton can lean on your politicians, why not the Church?) But to say that it’s not a political action is a lie.

 

[Confiteor]

Penny Plain:

That’s fine.

Then let’s come out and say that the decision to focus on Catholic politicians is a political decision that the Church has made with the specific intent of causing Catholic politicians to vote in certain ways on certain issues.

The Church can certainly do that, if it wants to. What the Church cannot do and maintain its integrity is focus solely on Catholic politicians and then claim that its actions are not political.

Then why the focus solely on politicians and solely on abortion? I quote the article that somebody posted earlier:

If we’re going to ban manifest sinners from receiving Communion, then why the focus on some sinners and some sins? If this is really about the souls of sinners, then doesn’t the Church have an obligation to protect the souls of all manifest sinners? The pro-abortion Catholic politician and the 22-year-old who’s shacked up with her boyfriend are both in mortal sin. Both souls need equal protection, right?

It’s not about the souls of manifest sinners. It certainly doesn’t seem to be about reverence for the Eucharist if some manifest sinners are allowed to receive, but not others. Sacrilege is sacrilege.

Is it about an example to the community? Maybe. But the lesson is that some mortal sins are worse than others, and the lesson many would draw from letting the notorious cohabitator receive but not the politician is that the Church does not frown on cohabitation.

It’s an attempt to influence the votes of Catholic politicians. That’s fine; the Church can do that if it wants to. (If Haliburton can lean on your politicians, why not the Church?) But to say that it’s not a political action is a lie.

The answers to your questions and comments are covered pretty well in the references I provided links to. I hope you get a chance to read them because they are responsive to the issues you raise. Archbishop Chaput’s writings on the Church and political matters are also great resources. Some of these (all very short) include:

On the primacy of abortion:
archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=75&s=2&a=1835
On pro-choice Catholic pols:
archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=97&s=2&a=2293
On the relationship between faith and politics:
archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=75&s=2&a=1835
archden.org/archbishop/docs/05_20_05_ab_statement.htm

With respect to the comparison of a Catholic politician (who has been counseled by his bishop/pastor because that is where the “obstinate” part comes in) and the 22 year cohabitor:

First, the 22 year may not even be a “manifest” sinner. To be one, she must have “full knowledge” and her sinful actions must be well known to the community. Does she even know the Church teaching or is there an element of ignorance? Does she attend Mass and receive Holy Communion, and if so, does that cause scandal to the congregation? Second, she probably doesn’t have any say in whether cohabitation is “legal” for her or others and little ability to facilitate or prevent the cohabitation of third parties. Third, immoral behavior like cohabitation doesn’t necessarily equate to “thou shalt not kill” as abortion does. Life issues take precedence, and abortion is the predominant life issue.