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

[mrteachersir2]

Been thinking about this.

Cardinal Burke argues that a Catholic politician who votes in favor of abortion “rights” is in manifest grave sin. This makes sense, because such votes directly enable and encourage more and more women to seek abotions.

Other bishops don’t want to go so far as to say voting for abortion directly enables abortion, so are hesitent to apply c. 915. They are not really saying that abortion is ok, or that other issues, like poverty, rise to the level of abortion. They are just hesitant to say that voting for abortion rises to the level of grave sin.

The latter view seems more of a cop out to me.

 

[Ender]

Other bishops don’t want to go so far as to say voting for abortion directly enables abortion, so are hesitent to apply c. 915. They are not really saying that abortion is ok, or that other issues, like poverty, rise to the level of abortion. They are just hesitant to say that voting for abortion rises to the level of grave sin.

This is perhaps a reasonable interpretation of their (in)actions but it is not one I agree with. I don’t think they have convinced themselves that supporting abortion is not a grave sin; I think they just don’t want to take the politically charged step of enforcing c. 915. I have never read of a bishop endorsing the idea that supporting abortion is not a sin; I have read where they claim that it is the individual who has the obligation to determine for himself whether or not to attend communion (c. 916).

That there are political implications in denying a politician communion does not mean that the decision to enforce c. 915 is a political issue. It becomes a political issue only if communion is allowed because of concern about the political implications. I have not not seen any argument that seems the least bit valid that Catholic politicians who publicly support a woman’s right to an abortion are not in violation of c. 915. Such politicians should be counseled by their bishop and if they ignore his warning they should be denied communion.

Ender

 

[johnnykins]

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) …

Ender

Perhaps you have a quote wherein one or the other says they support abortion? I have never seen one and would love to see one. May well be out there. NOTE, a statement that they support or do not support a certain piece of legislation, or a comment about what the appropriate civil law response to abortion is is not adequate - post a statement wherein they say they are in favor of abortion. Note also, abortion ‘rights’ is a comment on the civil response - not a statement on support of abortion. That’s the crux. If they support abortion they should be denied communion. If they disagree with the Bishops on what to do about abortion - that’s a different matter.

I am well aware that many Catholic politicians oppose certain laws and restrictions that have been proffered on abortion. That does not mean they are pro-abortion. They may be - but that does not show it. Face it, the Bishops have been singularly inept - or worse - in understanding an appropriate use of civil law especially in matters of morality.

Now, that doesn’t change the fact that a Catholic should give serious consideration to the positions of the Bishops. Nonetheless, there is no special charism in the Church to make the right choice in the civil sphere. Any cursory review of history shows that. the current sex abuse scandal shows it in spades.

That Catholics disagree with the hierarchy on how to address abortion is not the same as being in support of abortion.

 

[johnnykins]

Been thinking about this.

Cardinal Burke argues that a Catholic politician who votes in favor of abortion “rights” is in manifest grave sin.

What does that mean? Failure to vote for, or voting against, a certain Supreme Court nominee? Certainly not. Failure to vote for or against a particular Constitutional amendment? Certainly not. Failure to vote for or against a particular piece of legislation? Certainly not. The good Cardinal is, frankly, off base. To my knowledge the vote for abortion rights has never come up in any enforceable manner. Certainly laws at the edges have come up - e.g., notification laws, etc. - but that is not voting for or against abortion.

This makes sense, because such votes directly enable and encourage more and more women to seek abotions.

Nonsense! It is no more than a disagreement on the right response. Civil law is a blunt and often inappropriate tool to handle issues such as abortion. Lots of things enable and encourage abortion. Self-righteous condemnation of those pregnant out of wedlock is, IMHO, number one on the hit parade. This very site is rife with threads calling for the most vile condemnation of young women who get pregnant when unmarried. Also, the lack of adequate support and healthcare for the pregnant and and new born in this country often encourages abortion. The list can go on. Should politicians who refuse to support healthcare for pregnant unwed uninsured mothers be denied communion because it encourages abortion?

Other bishops don’t want to go so far as to say voting for abortion directly enables abortion, so are hesitent to apply c. 915.

Where has there ever been a vote in support of abortion or against it for that matter? Clear and unadulterated - up or down: are you in favor of abortion? Votes to say it should not be a criminal matter - in the Supreme Court - or votes concerning consent of parents or spouses are not the same thing contrary to popular opinion on this Board.

They are not really saying that abortion is ok, or that other issues, like poverty, rise to the level of abortion. They are just hesitant to say that voting for abortion rises to the level of grave sin.

I think they are saying that disagreement on what to do in the civil arena is not the same as saying you are in favor of abortion at all.

The latter view seems more of a cop out to me.

It seems to me to be on the mark.

 

[johnnykins]

Consider this: Over the last several years the Church has come out quite strongly against the death penalty. Several states continue to impose the death penalty. Many people on this Board loudly argue for abortion to be treated a murder - presumably with the death penalty since they often are quite vocal in support of the death penalty. Let’s say a Constitutional Amendment to repeal Roe comes up. That would throw it back to the states to regulate. A legislator may know that certain states may impose the death penalty on abortion. Must he vote for that amendment or face denial of communion? Is he in favor of abortion because he believes a nationwide resolution of the matter is better than the states right solution?

What if he simply believes that making abortion a crime with severe penalties will be counterproductive: promote the anti-abortion crowd, lead to enshrining abortion not only as a right but a good in order to defeat the criminalization of abortion. What if he was an adult when Roe came down and knows it was rendered in order to address just such a situation? Perhaps be believes that the pre-Roe world was not the answer either - and led to a very bad situation. Perhaps he believes the way to limit abortion is to serve the poor, provide healthcare, try to change the societal pressures on pregnant women? Should he be denied communion because of that? If he’s right should those who oppose him similarly be denied communion?

The problem with too many people on this Board and elsewhere is that this issue is not susceptible to easy answers, platitudes and moral decisions separate from reality. Maybe would should all start assuming very few Catholics are in favor of abortion. Maybe then we can try to talk with each other to try to reduce the incidence of abortion. Frankly, IMHO the law is not the answer. The moral catechesis fo all involved is: the mother, the father and society. I just do not see easy answers.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

I find it hard to believe that you have followed events leading up to, including, and since The abortion cases were decided in 1973. Neither Rope. vs. Wade nor Doe vs.Bolton are based on precedent. Indeed. Harry Blackmun’s opinion pretty much ignores the historical events that produced the anti-pabortion laws in Texas and Georgia. As Justice White, says in his dissent: they were raw exercises of judicial authority, which at a stroke invalidated every state law having to with abortion. The Texas law was enacted in 1856 at the insistence of the Texas Medical Association; the Georgia Law is enacted in, I think, 1963, and was supposed to be a model for reforms every where. Each was struck down with little regards for merit, or for the rights of the states, nor for public opinion. What the two decisions created was a new constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of a sudden, the United States had an abortion law more liberal than any country in the world except the communists states. Furthermore, a practice which the great majority in the United States thought immoral was given the protection of the Courts. I mean all of a sudden. It was in effect a coup d’main. The Supreme Court, which speaks for the elite classes in the United States, had issued an edict commanding all the agencies of the national and state government that abortion was a positive good that must be respected.

Well, all these Catholic political have respected it, all right. They have done their damned level best to prevent anyone from inhibiting the increase in the number of abortions. The Republican Party which under Gerry Ford was the abortion party, suddenly found itself with thousands of ex-Democrats who were anti-abortion. The Secretary of HHS under Carter was, of course, anti-abortion, but he soon found himself as odd-man out as one Catholic pol after another converted to the “pro-choice” cause. So along the way we witnessed what happened to Governor Casey, the pro-life pol, who could not get a hearing at the Democratic convention.

As for your proposals: they amount to doing nothing. Continue the sotto voce approach of Bernardin’s “blanket” approach. To the devil with this.

 

[johnnykins]

I find it hard to believe that you have followed events leading up to, including, and since The abortion cases were decided in 1973. Neither Rope. vs. Wade nor Doe vs.Bolton are based on precedent.

I certainly followed events. I don’t see how in this discussion precedent is relevant. It is the law - good, bad or indifferent. In short your comment is inapt.

Indeed. Harry Blackmun’s opinion pretty much ignores the historical events that produced the anti-pabortion laws in Texas and Georgia. As Justice White, says in his dissent: they were raw exercises of judicial authority, which at a stroke invalidated every state law having to with abortion. The Texas law was enacted in 1856 at the insistence of the Texas Medical Association; the Georgia Law is enacted in, I think, 1963, and was supposed to be a model for reforms every where. Each was struck down with little regards for merit, or for the rights of the states, nor for public opinion.

True - which simply supports my contention that the pre-Roe situation is not what we need to return to - it led to Roe with all its problems and judicial manhandling. That’s one of my points! Thank you for supporting my contention.

What the two decisions created was a new constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of a sudden, the United States had an abortion law more liberal than any country in the world except the communists states.

Ditto!

Furthermore, a practice which the great majority in the United States thought immoral was given the protection of the Courts.

Oddly, when it came to their own unmarried child the majority was clearly somewhat less. In any event that again demonstrates the problems with the pre-Roe world.

I mean all of a sudden. It was in effect a coup d’main.

Again, thank you for your support.

The Supreme Court, which speaks for the elite classes in the United States,

depends on what and when - and certainly in no official manner!

had issued an edict commanding all the agencies of the national and state government that abortion was a positive good that must be respected.

They never said a “positive good” they said it was a right. There is a difference. In any event, it shows exactly what i was referring to. The law was not the answer.

Well, all these Catholic political have respected it, all right. They have done their damned level best to prevent anyone from inhibiting the increase in the number of abortions.

You’ve missed the point. But, I’m not terribly surprised. Many people with you position have, in my experience, a preternatural belief that simply declaring something illegal corrects it.

The Republican Party which under Gerry Ford was the abortion party, suddenly found itself with thousands of ex-Democrats who were anti-abortion.

non-sequitur spinning off into la a land

The Secretary of HHS under Carter was, of course, anti-abortion, but he soon found himself as odd-man out as one Catholic pol after another converted to the “pro-choice” cause. So along the way we witnessed what happened to Governor Casey, the pro-life pol, who could not get a hearing at the Democratic convention.

As for your proposals: they amount to doing nothing.

And yours will ensure that nothing changes.

Continue the otto voce approach of Bernardin’s “blanket” approach. To the devil with this.

Oh the Devil is certainly with this. Not sure where Bernardin comes in. I certainly never raised him.

Pax te cum

 

[Ender]

Where has there ever been a vote in support of abortion or against it for that matter? Clear and unadulterated - up or down: are you in favor of abortion? Votes to say it should not be a criminal matter - in the Supreme Court - or votes concerning consent of parents or spouses are not the same thing contrary to popular opinion on this Board. I think they are saying that disagreement on what to do in the civil arena is not the same as saying you are in favor of abortion at all.

This reminds me of nothing so much as the argument Clinton used to support his contention that he never had sex with Monica Lewinski. Apparently we are going to have another debate about what the meaning of is is. Perhaps, though, you can explain how the vote on partial birth abortion doesn’t meet these requirements. It was an up or down vote: permit a peculiarly gruesome form of abortion … or forbid it. Arguing that Pelosi et al weren’t really supporting abortion but merely supporting choice is like arguing that John Dillenger really didn’t want to rob banks: wanting money is not the same as wanting to steal it. The distinction is meaningless. I don’t know which would be worse - believing the bishops are too afraid of the outcry if they enforced c. 915 or that they are naive enough to accept an explanation like yours.

Politicians have an obligation to uphold the basic rights of all citizens. Laws facilitating abortion fail to meet that fundamental standard. According to your theory apparently no one is responsible for the existence of laws permitting abortion since no one supports abortion.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Over the last several years the Church has come out quite strongly against the death penalty. Several states continue to impose the death penalty. Many people on this Board loudly argue for abortion to be treated a murder - presumably with the death penalty since they often are quite vocal in support of the death penalty. Let’s say a Constitutional Amendment to repeal Roe comes up. That would throw it back to the states to regulate. A legislator may know that certain states may impose the death penalty on abortion. Must he vote for that amendment or face denial of communion? Is he in favor of abortion because he believes a nationwide resolution of the matter is better than the states right solution?

What if he simply believes that making abortion a crime with severe penalties will be counterproductive: promote the anti-abortion crowd, lead to enshrining abortion not only as a right but a good in order to defeat the criminalization of abortion. What if he was an adult when Roe came down and knows it was rendered in order to address just such a situation? Perhaps be believes that the pre-Roe world was not the answer either - and led to a very bad situation. Perhaps he believes the way to limit abortion is to serve the poor, provide healthcare, try to change the societal pressures on pregnant women? Should he be denied communion because of that? If he’s right should those who oppose him similarly be denied communion?

The problem with too many people on this Board and elsewhere is that this issue is not susceptible to easy answers, platitudes and moral decisions separate from reality. Maybe would should all start assuming very few Catholics are in favor of abortion. Maybe then we can try to talk with each other to try to reduce the incidence of abortion. Frankly, IMHO the law is not the answer. The moral catechesis fo all involved is: the mother, the father and society. I just do not see easy answers.

 

[mrteachersir2]

Nonsense! It is no more than a disagreement on the right response. Civil law is a blunt and often inappropriate tool to handle issues such as abortion. Lots of things enable and encourage abortion. Self-righteous condemnation of those pregnant out of wedlock is, IMHO, number one on the hit parade. This very site is rife with threads calling for the most vile condemnation of young women who get pregnant when unmarried. Also, the lack of adequate support and healthcare for the pregnant and and new born in this country often encourages abortion. The list can go on. Should politicians who refuse to support healthcare for pregnant unwed uninsured mothers be denied communion because it encourages abortion?

Roe v Wade created de facto abortion on demand for all nine months of a woman’s pregnancy. While third-trimester abortions are rare, they are still legal. All that was left for abortion advocates was to maintain the status quo: any woman who wants an abortion can get one. Since then, pro-lifers have fought, mostly within the scope of Roe to limit access to abortions and thus limit the numbers of babies murdered in the womb. Such methods include parental consent and notification, requiring the mother to view an ultrasound before aborting, and now a waiting period between consultation and the murder. Other methods incude increasing the presence and resources of crisis pregnancy centers, or praying outside abortion clinics, and the like.

Politicians that you seem to defend have voted unhestitatingly against consent/notification laws, ultrasound laws, and waiting periods. Why? Because they know these laws will limit the number of abortions women have. In essence, by removing information from needy and hurting women, they are encouraging women to have an abortion. Likewise, by pushing for federal funding, they seek to enable women to get abortions. In addition, many of these same politicians have passed laws restricting people from praying in front of abortion clinics, and in New York State, they are even attempting to limit the influence of crisis pregnancy centers. Why? Because these efforts are reducing the number of women who elect to kill their babies.

These politicians’ votes directly impact the number of abortions that are performed each year. Thus, each politician is persisting in manifest (public, obvious) grave matter.

You mentioned care for pregnant women and newborns. Besides the fact that the very politicians you are defending have worked hard to eliminate organizations that provide such care for uninsured women (as they are in New York City and New York State), most states provide care for such a situation as a priority…I should know, because I’ve had to use such provisions in the relatively recent past (in case you were wondering, pregnant women, newborns, and children are immediately covered after applying; adults have a waiting period in most states).

Should politicians who refuse to support healthcare for pregnant unwed uninsured mothers be denied communion because it encourages abortion?

Canon 915 mentions grave matter. Some things are inherently gravely sinful, others become that when you consider the intent of the action.

Abortion is alwys gravely sinful (Evangelium vitae, 62). Unlike other social issues, abortion-related bills are specifically about abortion (because of its contentiousness, no doubt). This is why Pres. Obama voted ‘present’ while a state senator (he didn’t want to alienate voters on either side of the issue). Thus, politicians who are voting on abortion bills are voting with an explicit intent to either enable/encourage women to have abortions, or restrict access to/discourage abortions. Any politician who votes in favor of abortion is participating in grave matter.

In the question you raise, the issue itself is not inherently grave matter. As Archbishops Chaput and Neinstandt both teach, “health care” does not equate “health insurance”. Because health insurance is not a grave matter, intent is a huge issue here. If a politician desperately wants women to resort to abortions, s/he could refuse insurance for pregnant women and newborns, hoping that would encourage women to have abortions (this is what happens in national health care systems, because abortion is cheaper than medical coverage). That would be grave matter. On the other hand, a politician could believe that it is not the state’s job to provide insurance for people, that private companies could do a better, more cost efficient job, and thus vote accordingly. Thus, this second politician would not be participating in grave matter.

 

[mrteachersir2]

When you ask for statements that affirm Nancy Pelosi’s ardent support of a woman’s right to slaughter her unborn children, I have to wonder if you are really genuine in your concern.

“I have some concerns about the church’s position respecting a woman’s right to choose. I have some concerns about the church’s position on gay rights. I am a practicing Catholic, although they’re probably not too happy about that. But it is my faith. I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that is that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have that opportunity to exercise their free will.” catholicnewsagency.com/news/pelosis_archbishop_slams_her_rationale_for_supporting_abortion/#

Headline from San Francisco Chronicle a couple of days ago:
“Pelosi, Speier speak at abortion-rights fundraiser” (article at sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/28/MNNV1IKT91.DTL)

"Women’s reproductive rights are being seriously threatened by the Republican Party, according to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who said she is worried that many women are complacent about the possibility that they will lose access to abortions.

“They’re advancing extreme legislation,” Pelosi said Thursday during a conference call with reporters. “It’s dangerous to women’s health, disrespects the judgment of American women – I don’t know if they even gave that a thought – and it’s the most comprehensive and radical assault on women’s health in our lifetime. It’s that bad.” "
huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/10/nancy-pelosi-womens-rights-threatened_n_821536.html

So, she has concerns over the Church’s definitive condemnation of abortion, but calling abortion “a woman’s right to choose”. Obviously, she is in support of abortion “rights”. Then, she publicly speaks at a fund-raiser for abortion-rights groups. Then, she calls abortion-limiting legislation “the most comprehensive assault on women’s health in our lifetime.” If this is not sufficient, what more do you want?

 

[mrteachersir2]

I.

You’ve missed the point. But, I’m not terribly surprised. Many people with you position have, in my experience, a preternatural belief that simply declaring something illegal corrects it.

Murder is illegal. Granted there are murders that happen everyday, despite this fact. If we legalize murder, would the murder rate increase or decrease?

 

[stephe1987]

If they choose to take Communion, that is between themselves and God. It is a mortal sin to take Communion unworthily, meaning if you are not “in communion” with the Church (why non-Catholics can’t take Communion) and/or you are in a state of mortal sin. It is one thing to not understand a Catholic teaching–in that case you need to pray and study more–and quite another to pretend to be a faithful Catholic while actively speaking against Church teachings. They are endangering their souls and are most likely on their way to hell if they don’t change their ways.

Re: other topics-
ABC is a grave sin.
Cohabitation is a mortal sin and it is also unwise for couples (Catholic or not) wishing to have a lasting marriage.
Size of wedding depends on what the couple and family can afford. With the divorce rate as high as it is, I am in favor of small, intimate weddings (family and close friends ONLY) and then doing a big celebration for the 25th, 50th, 60th, etc. wedding anniversaries. THOSE are the events worth doing huge celebrations for.
Remarriage after divorce without annulment is not possible. It is adultery, plain and simple. The only way this could happen is if the marriage did not get approved and was never valid in the first place.

Should the Church deny Communion to them? Not unless they’ve been excommunicated.

Re: legalized murder- of course it would increase. Look how much violence there is already. People will just kill someone they’re angry at, especially in poor areas, ghetto, gangs. etc.

 

[Ender]

If they choose to take Communion, that is between themselves and God. It is a mortal sin to take Communion unworthily, meaning if you are not “in communion” with the Church (why non-Catholics can’t take Communion) and/or you are in a state of mortal sin.

This is partly true. Canon 916 identifies the individual’s responsibility:

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; …

It is one thing to not understand a Catholic teaching–in that case you need to pray and study more–and quite another to pretend to be a faithful Catholic while actively speaking against Church teachings.

It is also useful to know Church teaching which in this case means awareness of canon 915 which explains that receiving communion properly is not solely the responsibility of the communicant.

Should the Church deny Communion to them? Not unless they’ve been excommunicated.

Not so. You do not have to be excommunicated to be denied communion.

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.

Ender

 

[mrteachersir2]

Re: other topics-
ABC is a grave sin.
Cohabitation is a mortal sin and it is also unwise for couples (Catholic or not) wishing to have a lasting marriage.

Remarriage after divorce without annulment is not possible. It is adultery, plain and simple. The only way this could happen is if the marriage did not get approved and was never valid in the first place.

Should the Church deny Communion to them? Not unless they’ve been excommunicated.

Yes, actually, She should, persuant to canon 915…provided they are participating in MANIFEST grave sin. This would be appropriate in the case of NY governor Andrew Cuomo, who is divorced, and is cohabitating with his concubine (which is the technical term for it). Cuomo has not gotten an annulment, so his (eventual?) marriage would be invalid, and is currently cohabitating. What makes matters worse, he’s not hiding it either, as he parades her around and makes no bones about telling people. At least that is the position of at least one canon lawyer, Dr. Ed Peters.

However, it would not be appropriate in the case of numerous people in my former parish, whose pastor just marries people at will (if the Diocese chose to audit the marriage files for that parish in the last ten years, there’d be a ton of invalid ones). Most of the these people were never told they needed to obtain a declaration of nullity prior to getting remarried, and so while persisting in grave matter, it is not necessarily manifest.

Re: legalized murder- of course it would increase. Look how much violence there is already. People will just kill someone they’re angry at, especially in poor areas, ghetto, gangs. etc.

That’s my point. If legalized murder increases the murder rate over illegal murder, then legalized abortion will likewise increase the abortion rate over illegal abortion. And I think we here can all agree that decreasing abortion is a good thing.