US Bishop: How long will pro-abort politicians be able to receive Communion?

[Abyssinia]

“One must honestly ask, how many times and years may a Catholic politician vote for the so called right to abortion, - “murder” in the words of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (58), and still be able to receive Holy Communion?” The remark came as part of a keynote address delivered by Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Fargo on March 18.

“The continual reception of Holy Communion by those who so visibly contradict and promote a grave evil, even more than simply dissent, only creates grave scandal, undermines the teaching and governing authority of the Church and can be interpreted by the faithful as indifference to the teaching of Christ and the Church on the part of those who have the responsibility to govern,” Bishop Aquila told over 150 participants at the 10th Annual Symposium on the Spirituality and Identity of the Diocesan Priest in Philadelphia, PA .

lifenews.com/2011/03/24/princeton-student-accused-of-racism-for-fliers-on-black-abortions/

 

[puzzleannie]

this is not a link to a news source

in my opinion the bishops lost their chance to credibly enforce the issue of communion for pro-abort prominent Catholics when they failed to do so as ABC, premarital sex, cohabitation followed by huge Catholic weddings, remarriage after divorce w/o annulment, and similar cultural scandals became the norm for Catholics as well as non-Catholics. They are left with very little moral high ground now.

 

[David_Oatney]

this is not a link to a news source

in my opinion the bishops lost their chance to credibly enforce the issue of communion for pro-abort prominent Catholics when they failed to do so as ABC, premarital sex, cohabitation followed by huge Catholic weddings, remarriage after divorce w/o annulment, and similar cultural scandals became the norm for Catholics as well as non-Catholics. They are left with very little moral high ground now.

I hate to say this, because I do not hate the idea of pro-abortionist public figures receiving communion-I despise it. However, unless the pro-abortionist in question publicly denies the teaching authority of the Church, making a public denial of communion is also to make a presumptive public judgment on the state of a person’s soul-it is a very touchy thing.

There are, of course, times when a bishop can do that. I do not believe that so-called Catholic political leaders who support legal abortion should receive Holy Communion because they themselves know that they are promoting ideas which support mortal sin. However, puzzleannie is right. If we are going to deny the Eucharist to one group of people who publicly deny the Church’s teaching, it must be equally denied to cohabitors and others known to be living in sin. That has not been done for a very long time.

 

[puzzleannie]

the same logic applies to firing Catholic school or college teachers, or refusing registration of children in families who are gay advocates, publicly support pro-choice causes and so forth, unless the same standard is applied to those who publicly and flagrantly make other immoral choices, stances, and actions.

 

[RobbyS]

this is not a link to a news source

in my opinion the bishops lost their chance to credibly enforce the issue of communion for pro-abort prominent Catholics when they failed to do so as ABC, premarital sex, cohabitation followed by huge Catholic weddings, remarriage after divorce w/o annulment, and similar cultural scandals became the norm for Catholics as well as non-Catholics. They are left with very little moral high ground now.

After WWII, the bishops saw themselves as being accepted among the American elites, especially after they led the charge for reform during Vatican II. Didn’t happen. The more they thought to accommodate elite opinion, the more they were despised. Nothing new in all this. The 4th Century bishops followed the emperor into semi-arianism. The English bishops followed Henry VIII into schism and heresy. The Gallican bishops kept their distance from Rome. Makes you wonder why we have bishops, until you recall all the saints among them. Roses among the thorns.

 

[TMC]

A better question is how long will we have to put up with these calls to use the Body of Christ as a weapon. The vast majority of our bishops, including the Pope, decline to use denial of the Eucharist as a way to shame public figures. To imply that bishops that use the Sacraments as a cudgel are somehow more righteous than those that do not defames the vast majority of bishops that have concluded these issues are better addressed in other ways.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Something that puzzles me is why do we as a Church take such a “cautious” stance with pro-abortion Catholic politicians by allowing them to receive Holy Communion yet we take an often-times very strong stance to deny Holy Communion to someone that is in the process of getting an annulment. To say that it would “cause scandal” seems a bit contradictory when I see our Church’s continually ignorance of the scandal caused by these pro-abortion Catholic politicians. It gives me pause and if someone can explain the difference to me from a “causes scandal” standpoint, that would be appreciated.

 

[puzzleannie]

After WWII, the bishops saw themselves as being accepted among the American elites, especially after they led the charge for reform during Vatican II. Didn’t happen. The more they thought to accommodate elite opinion, the more they were despised. Nothing new in all this. The 4th Century bishops followed the emperor into semi-arianism. The English bishops followed Henry VIII into schism and heresy. The Gallican bishops kept their distance from Rome. Makes you wonder why we have bishops, until you recall all the saints among them. Roses among the thorns.

those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. The same could be said for the cover-up theory of governing a state or a local church

 

[Ender]

A better question is how long will we have to put up with these calls to use the Body of Christ as a weapon. The vast majority of our bishops, including the Pope, decline to use denial of the Eucharist as a way to shame public figures. To imply that bishops that use the Sacraments as a cudgel are somehow more righteous than those that do not defames the vast majority of bishops that have concluded these issues are better addressed in other ways.

This is a gross distortion of the problem. The question is fairly simple: does canon 915 apply to Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion? If it does, then denying them communion is mandatory; it is not optional at the discretion of the bishop.

Ender

 

[onenow1]

Hi, All

My hope ! I suspect in the very near future, there will be a meeting of the minds as to, proper attitude of all Catholics on receiving, the Eucharist, in awe !

God Bless

 

[catharina]

Something that puzzles me is why do we as a Church take such a “cautious” stance with pro-abortion Catholic politicians by allowing them to receive Holy Communion yet we take an often-times very strong stance to deny Holy Communion to someone that is in the process of getting an annulment. To say that it would “cause scandal” seems a bit contradictory when I see our Church’s continually ignorance of the scandal caused by these pro-abortion Catholic politicians. It gives me pause and if someone can explain the difference to me from a “causes scandal” standpoint, that would be appreciated.

Such an action would only be taken if the person seeking annulment
were actually already living in an illicit new relationship. That is, if one is
ignoring Church teachings by taking up with a new (illicit) partner in an
area where this sinful relationship is well-known to all, then yes, the action
of receiving Holy Communion could cause grave scandal to one and all.

 

[johnnykins]

This is a gross distortion of the problem. The question is fairly simple: does canon 915 apply to Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion? If it does, then denying them communion is mandatory; it is not optional at the discretion of the bishop.

Ender

The more difficult issue is what does “support for abortion” mean?

I know of very few politicians who are in favor of abortion.
I know of many politicians who disagree with imposing criminal sanctions for abortion.
I know of very very few politicians who are in favor of criminal sanctions for abortion under all circumstances.
What to do about abortion while not supporting it is a prudential judgment.
All the catechism says is that appropriate civil measures must be taken - and HMC is properly unclear on what that is - and “appropriate” could be interpreted quite broadly including nothing at all.
The issue of abortion in the USA is coupled with a large number of issues including constitutional amendment issues, constitutional interpretation issues, federalism, spending power, criminal law, laws governing minors, parental rights, marital rights, medical and hospital licensing, etc., which complicates any number of votes on bills.

The Bishops moral authority has largely been squandered over the last decade due to the scandal and pushing improperly will not help them regain it. Certainly, the history of HMC as a civil entity and its application of civil law where it could is not a pretty picture. Ya’ll need to google Edgardo Mortara for a case in point.

The Bishops certainly need to preach on the evil of abortion and the need for appropriate steps to reduce the incidence of it. They would do well, IMHO, to tread lightly on the exact steps that will best do that.

 

[Brendan]

I making a public denial of communion is also to make a presumptive public judgment on the state of a person’s soul-it is a very touchy thing.

Actually it doesn’t

There are two relevant Canons 915, and 916

916 is the one you are referring to, where it is up to the person themselves to determine if they are in a state of Grace or not. We cannot judge that.

But the previous Canon 915 refers to EXTERNALS.

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Note the word ‘manifest’, that means what is publically known. Also note that it includes not only a recommendation that the person be denied Holy Communion, but it is actually a requirement that it happen.

 

[TMC]

This is a gross distortion of the problem. The question is fairly simple: does canon 915 apply to Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion? If it does, then denying them communion is mandatory; it is not optional at the discretion of the bishop.

Ender

I believe it is the bishop that has the authority to interpret and apply the Canon within his diocese, at least until some higher authority tells him he is doing it wrong. The vast majority of bishops do not apply the Canon in that way. At least two American Cardinals and one other American Archbishop have explicitly said that the Canon is not intended to be applied in that way. The Pope apparently agrees, as he is not applying the Canon in that manner, either.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Such an action would only be taken if the person seeking annulment
were actually already living in an illicit new relationship. That is, if one is
ignoring Church teachings by taking up with a new (illicit) partner in an
area where this sinful relationship is well-known to all, then yes, the action
of receiving Holy Communion could cause grave scandal to one and all.

I understand that. What I do not understand is the apparent inconsistency when it comes to pro-abortion Catholic politicians and the grave scandal it produces. What I am looking for is a reasonable explanation as to why one sinful behavior (illicit partner) is enforced with communion denial while the other (pro-abortion Catholic poliitician) is not.

 

[catharina]

I understand that. What I do not understand is the apparent inconsistency when it comes to pro-abortion Catholic politicians and the grave scandal it produces. What I am looking for is a reasonable explanation as to why one sinful behavior (illicit partner) is enforced with communion denial while the other (pro-abortion Catholic poliitician) is not.

IMO, we needn’t “understand” everything.

My guess: it might have to do with the face-to-face
scandal that can present itself over and over in the
presence of adults and children at a local parish
when a “living-in-sin” couple decides to defy the
authority of the Church - quite “in your face” on a regular basis.

OTOH, politicians travel. They’re here, they’re there -
who’s tracking them on a regular basis? Likely - no one.

 

[Ender]

I believe it is the bishop that has the authority to interpret and apply the Canon within his diocese, at least until some higher authority tells him he is doing it wrong. The vast majority of bishops do not apply the Canon in that way. At least two American Cardinals and one other American Archbishop have explicitly said that the Canon is not intended to be applied in that way. The Pope apparently agrees, as he is not applying the Canon in that manner, either.

As to whether each bishop has the authority to interpret and apply the canon for himself is a valid question. There is certainly no doubt but that, in practice, this is the way things are, but I don’t think it is valid to conclude that this is the way things should be simply because this is the way things are.

Contrary to johnnykins assertion that it is difficult to know what “support of abortion” means, few people seem to have any problem at all knowing that some Catholic politicians outspokenly support it (e.g. Kennedy, Pelosi) while others are just as outspoken in their opposition (e.g. Santorum). The way things are now, a bishop in one diocese might withhold communion from the same person another bishop would allow to receive. Clearly, one of the two positions must be wrong. So far as I have read, the arguments used to support the position that communion should not be withheld are weak and unconvincing.

Stating that canon 915 does not apply and providing a reasonable argument to support that assertion are different things but the correct answer cannot be arbitrary and dependent on the whim of individual bishops.

Ender

 

[mrteachersir2]

It has been said that the Holy Father doesn’t support using Canon 915 against pro-abortion politicians. I this his silence on the matter isn’t support for that position. We all know that actions speak louder than words.

Archbishop Raymond Burke was very vocal about applying Canon 915 for any politician persisting in manifest grave sin back in 2004, when Sen John Kerry was running for office. Since then, he was promoted to the post of Prefect of the Apostolic Signutura, the supreme arbiter of Canon Law in the Church, and more recently, he was elevated to the status of Cardinal. These moves were all done by His Holiness, Benedict XVI, all while Cardinal Burke continues to say that c. 915 needs to be applied to pro-abortion politicians. Lets think this through, more completely: 1) Joseph Ratzinger basically silent about using c. 915 for pro-abortion politicians, 2) Archbishop Burke says loudly and often that c. 915 NEEDS and MUST be used for pro-abortion politicians, 3) Archbishop is PROMOTED by the same Joseph Ratzinger to be HEAD of the body that interprets Canon Law, 4) Archbishop still promotes using c. 915 for pro-abortion politicians, and 5) Joseph Ratzinger elevates same archbishop to Cardinal, one who will vote for Ratzinger’s successor. If Benedict XVI doesn’t support using c. 915 for pro-abortion politicians, he sure chose a funny way to show it…

Card. Burke, as well has Archbishop Chaput of Denver, has said that the importance of this canon is not public repudiation, but the salvation of that individual’s soul! We as a people have been raised on touchy/feely mumbo-jumbo for over 40 years. We are talking about a person potentially going to Hell, risking eternal separation from our Lord, and you are concerned about feeling publically embarrassed? St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians that those that partake in the Eucharist in an unworthy manner eat and drink judgement on themselves (btw, Tradition holds “unworthy manner” to be participating in grave sin). Does not Sacred Scripture mean anything anymore, or have we explained that away, too?

However, as an answer to the question in the OP, consider the case of His Excellency Joseph Martino, now-retired Bishop of Scranton. His Excellency had his deficiencies, to be sure, but he was very vocal and critical about pro-choice Catholic politicians. He criticized Sen. Bob Casey, Jr’s consistent pro-abortion voting (even though Casey ran as "pro-Life), ended a “townhall meeting” on Faithful Citizenship when a panel-member (a women’s religious that taught at a Catholic college in the Diocese) said the document made it OK to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, and even (if memory serves correctly) forbid Communion to then-Senator Biden (a Scranton native). Almost everyone in Scranton knows or assumes that His Excellency was forced to resign by Card. Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia.

Here we have a bishop who actively sought to teach the True Faith, and was PUNISHED for it. Is there any wonder why more bishops don’t stand-up and do the same?

 

[buffalo]

I hate to say this, because I do not hate the idea of pro-abortionist public figures receiving communion-I despise it. However, unless the pro-abortionist in question publicly denies the teaching authority of the Church, making a public denial of communion is also to make a presumptive public judgment on the state of a person’s soul-it is a very touchy thing.

There are, of course, times when a bishop can do that. I do not believe that so-called Catholic political leaders who support legal abortion should receive Holy Communion because they themselves know that they are promoting ideas which support mortal sin. However, puzzleannie is right. If we are going to deny the Eucharist to one group of people who publicly deny the Church’s teaching, it must be equally denied to cohabitors and others known to be living in sin. That has not been done for a very long time.

Public manifest sinners should be denied Holy Communion until they publicly retract their position.

 

[Ender]

Public manifest sinners should be denied Holy Communion until they publicly retract their position.

Not quite, they ***must ***be denied communion.

• “Those … obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”* (Can 915)

Ender