Vatican: Catholics Who Back Abortion Shouldn't Take Communion

[Traditional_Ang]

Sebaldus:

Maybe each parish could establish a Credentials Committee that could set up a little table at the head of the Communion line to question each potential recipient.

Sebaldus:

I don’t think it’s that. The problem is that of SCANDAL via the mixed message or what Scripture calls the “Uncertain Trumpet”. People such as Ted Kennady and John Keary promote anti-Catholic Bigotry in their attempt to promote their PRO-DEATH Political Agenda during the week and then take Our Lord’s Body and Blood, the most precious gift God can give us, and defile it on Sunday while they eat and drink judgment on themselves.

The Catholic cannot accommodate this evil and should never have accomodated this evil in the hopes that the US government would take the onurous job of taking care of the poor and the homeless from its overworked and overtaxed priests.

The Church now finds itself in the unenviable position of having to undo a deal with the devil of PRO-DEATH politicians they though would get the government to do the Church’s job and relieve the Church of taking care of the poor and the homeless.

Part of undoing this Faustian Bargain is denying PRO-DEATH politicians access to the greatest gift our Lord can give any of us, which is Himself in the Eucharist. Having done that, the Church’s message on LIFE and SEXUALITY (they are both entwined) will begin to become much more clear.

At the same time, the Church will be doing the most loving thing it can do with people who are really not right with God, allowing them a chance to rethink their positions and to possibly repent before they once again “eat and drink judgment on themselves”.

I really do believe that St. Paul was quite serious when he wrote those lines and that he wasn’t joking around.

At the same time, he Church has a chance to once again call the faithful to better than just showing up and occupying a seat on Sundays. The Church can begin to call the faithful to participate in the Church’s mission to evangelize and help the poor, homeless and lost in the myriad of ways Our Lord calls us to do.

I think there is little that brings people together like working on a common cause for a common good.

Blessed are they who act to save the Innocent, Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Bella3502:

I said none of the above. I can’t help the way you interpret posts.

As I said in previous posts, abortion will never be made illegal again. Women are not going back to the days of the coat hanger.

I myself, don’t have a solution to the abortion problem. And it is very clear that no one else here on these forums has a viable solution. But there is plenty of misguided talk and even more of these faces, both of which do nothing for the cause.

The solution is not to say things like “women will never go back to the coat hanger days!” How about telling the truth about abortion for a start it is murder!Are you saying that if they are going to KILL their child we must provide a good environment to do it???:tsktsk: What misguided talk by the way?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Bella3502:

Your stats are off because they do not include the clinics and the doctors who run them for the rich, (white) and elite. Guess what - if you have money you can go to the nice clean clinic, have an abortion and go right home to mummy and daddy. Don’t kid yourself, rich women have just as many abortions. You just don’t know about it cause their clinics are nicer, and the doctors don’t report the numbers. You only pay attention to the “abortion mills” in the “colored low income” parts of town, cause they are easier to see.

There are abortion mills in Beverly Hills and the Upper West Side of NYC…

Does it make it right?NO! By the way if you don’t know where the others are you can’t very well pay attention to it

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Bella3502:

Absolutely not. My point is that most white couples with money will go overseas and adopt a child that looks like them before considering adopting a child that does not look like them.

All children deserve homes.

That is one thing we agree on,all children do need and deserve homes.They do not however deserve to be ripped violently apart or burned inutero:nope:

 

[Bella3502]

Lisa4Catholics:

The solution is not to say things like “women will never go back to the coat hanger days!” How about telling the truth about abortion for a start it is murder!Are you saying that if they are going to KILL their child we must provide a good environment to do it???:tsktsk: What misguided talk by the way?

The abortion problem will never be resolved by making it illegal again.

 

[Bella3502]

Lisa4Catholics:

Does it make it right?NO! By the way if you don’t know where the others are you can’t very well pay attention to it

No one pays attention the the upscale abortion mills. That’s the advantage of having money and private doctors. Unforturnately, that’s another way the race card is played.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Bella3502:

The abortion problem will never be resolved by making it illegal again.

Why?I want to hear you reasons for saying this:ehh: Why?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Bella:

You referred to “the days of the coat hanger” in this post below and that “legal abortion will never be overturned” and, “Standing outside of an abortion clinic with colorful signs and a bull horn changes nothing,” in the previous.

Bella3502:

I said none of the above. I can’t help the way you interpret posts.

As I said in previous posts, abortion will never be made illegal again. Women are not going back to the days of the coat hanger.

I myself, don’t have a solution to the abortion problem. And it is very clear that no one else here on these forums has a viable solution. But there is plenty of misguided talk and even more of these faces, both of which do nothing for the cause.

Bella, we’ve had women here post as to why they had their abortions, and the part social pressure and the need not to have their lives disrupted played in those decisions.

The Catholic Church and other Churches also sponser a group called “Rachel’s Project” where far more women make themselves available to tell their often heartrending stories to those who will listen.

Bella, Roe v. Wade CAN be overturned, in the same way that Plessy v. Fergusen and Dred Scott v. Sanford were eventually overturned. It simply requires enough justices sitting on the Supreme Court at the same time who are able to see the Constitutional error of placing a woman’s right to privacy (which isn’t in the words of the Consititution) over another human being’s right to life (which is in the words of the Constitution).

After that, the argument goes to the states, which, as in 1973, would end up with differeing laws on Abortion. The thing is, once we place the debate in front of the RATIONAL Judgment of the INFORMED populace, we will win more often than we will lose.

And, at the very least, parents won’t have to live with the law as it’s been interpretted in CA, where schools can take teenage girls out to get abortions, not only without their parents’ consent, but without the parents ever finding out about them, even when parents make direct inquiries and have NO history of abusive behavior.

The people protesting in front of the clinics do make a difference - They talk people out of getting abortions and out of pressuring their loved ones to get abortions. The Santaria priestess who owns the one in Memphis wouldn’t be using all sorts of demonic incantations against the protestors if they weren’t! Or, Do you think this lady risks demonic possession just for the hades of it?

Oh, What do you believe about Abortion and what we have to do about our country’s Slaughter of the Innocents?

Blessed are they who act to end the slaughter of the Innocent, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Bella3502:

The abortion problem will never be resolved by making it illegal again.

Bella:

What would you say if I said that I thought it was my God given right as the stronger to own slaves…Using your reasoning, why shouldn’t slavery be legal?

I mean, they’re ONLY CHATEL PROPERTY!

At least that’s what most people in the world believed before the birth of the British Anti-Slavery Movement and the American Civil War!

In other words, Our laws are supposed to preserve, IN ORDER, the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY!

We are supposed to be better than allowing the owning and trading of human beings as chatel slaves, or as slaves of any kind.

We see that as self-evident, in spite of the fact that that foul institution is still practiced in parts of Africa and the Islamic World.

My question is, when are we going to see that slaughting human beings, simply because those human beings are inconvenient and in their mothers’ uteri, is also self-evidently wrong, and therefore mass murder?

Bella, If the fetus is a human being, doesn’t that fetus deserve the protection that we would accord ANY HUMAN BEING? or, ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THAT THE FETUS IS LESS HUMAN THAN YOU and therefore UNDESERVING OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE THAT YOU WOULD INSIST ON FOR ANY HUMAN BEING WHO WASN’T IN HIS MOTHER’S UTERUS?!

In other words Bella, If the Fetus is a Human being, the fetus has a Right to Life which must supercede the Mother’s Privacy or Property Rights, and, For this Right to Life to be effective, it must be protected in the same manner that YOUR RIGHT TO LIFE IS, BY LAWS making the taking or endangering of that LIFE ILLEGAL!

If you can’t agree to that, Bella, then you don’t agree that the fetus is a human being.

It’s really that simple.

At that point, I think that calling on you to defend your position, as we have defended ours in various fora, is fitting and proper, esp. since what I’ve stated about the Humanity of the Fetus has been the Teaching of Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches since the time of the Apostles and was that of the rest of the Christian Churches from the Reformation until the late 20th Century.

I’m sorry if this sounds blunt, but the Pro-Choice position is essentially sanctioning mass murder. It’s up to you to explain to me how this isn’t so.

Blessed are they who act to save the Innocent, Michael

 

[FdeS2]

Simple guidelines:

Don’t support abortion, the death penalty, etc…
Vote for the best candidate.
Live as Jesus would have you live.
Actively fight injustice and hate everywhere.
Love one another.
Pray for those who are misguided.

And Catholics who support abortion should not recieve the Eucharist. I certainly don’t want anyone doing violence to our Lord’s body and blood, abusing it as they do. Anyone in a state of mortal sin should be prevented from recieving the Eucharist.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

AlanFromWichita:

Others receive Communion while standing in personal judgment of others, and with unresolved conflicts with their brothers.

Except too many priests and bishops supported Kerry so they really didn’t get serious about it.

Question: so what was Cardinal Sodano doing, giving a Papal knighthood to a “pro-abortion” politician ?​

It just does not make sense to get in a flap about evil “pro-abortion” politicians, when one of them gets an honour from the Pope. The denunciations sound very unconvincing, because the Church is being very inconsistent, in saying one thing to one lot of of people, and then torpedoing that by honouring someone who represents what it claims, so energetically & explicitly, to reject. This sort of inconsistency is exactly what Tony Blair gets up to.

Result: not a lot of respect for authorities which can so spectacularly wrong-foot themselves. God bless Benedict XVI, and save him from such disastrous behaviour ##

Oops, I forgot. It’s not about the leaders, it’s about the bad sheep. Baa-aad sheep.

Blasphemy. The nature of Communion cannot be damaged by such trivia. Now let’s just glue the ear back on like Christ would, find a shot of faith, and quit giving sin credit for being able to trump the Church. Christ has conquered the world once; we really don’t need to protect Him from someone with improper political views.

The person who uses political votes to judge another’s readiness for Communion pays God lip service while disobeying Him. We are the pharisees, who would judge the woman who is washing Christ’s feet with her tears.

We would say to Christ in the Eucharist, “the next woman in line is a sinner; Lord, please do not disgrace yourself to be any part of her.”

Since salvation involves realising that one is under the very same condemnation as those whom one criticises, so that both alike may receive grace and mercy, it’s tolerably easy - and very comfortable - to guess what He might say ​

Judge not based on surface measures. That’s something the Church could stand to write a few missives on. We’re too busy chasing each other out of the Church. If the Church acted this way during the Reformation, I can’t say that I blame the sheep for having listened to a different voice.

That sounds like a prudent move.

People will vote Democratic, and then take Communion unless you stop them. At the beginning of each Mass, it should be made clear that if you voted for any pro-choice candidate, then you ARE NOT to take Communion, period.

Let’s quit wussying around with this, “faithful catholics ought to consider…” whatever it is stuff. Let’s just lay it flat out. Each election the Church has a sample ballot displayed, with certain candidates marked as sinful. Any Catholic who votes for any of these is out, period. Each person in line for Communion will make a quick affirmation to the usher of compliance with the Voting Rules, or will be escorted away from line.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

FdeS2:

Simple guidelines:

Don’t support abortion, the death penalty, etc…
Vote for the best candidate.
Live as Jesus would have you live.
Actively fight injustice and hate everywhere.
Love one another.
Pray for those who are misguided.

Simple sounding, but all subjective measures except the first one, and that’s arguable.

And Catholics who support abortion should not recieve the Eucharist.

And just because some poor misguided schlep votes for Kerry does not mean they support abortion. It is not that simple.

I certainly don’t want anyone doing violence to our Lord’s body and blood, abusing it as they do.

Too late; we already did it to Him 2000 years ago.

Anyone in a state of mortal sin should be prevented from recieving the Eucharist.

Aha, here’s the meat of it. “Should be prevented” means we must have a way to judge and be willing to act on it, even if publicly and at the expense of a disturbance in the Communion line.

Christ taught us we should not bother bringing our gifts to the altar while we hold a grudge against another man. He also told us that viewing one’s brother as a fool and being angry is spiritually tantamount to murder. One would think that wishing another to leave the table of the Bread of Life because we have judged them on surface actions, is itself a potential mortal sin.

If we really want to take this logic to its absolute conclusions, the best thing would be for us to just disallow Communion for anyone who has not yet been canonized a saint. That way we won’t be guilty of failing to protect God against having to come into close contact with these sinners.

Alan

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

AlanFromWichita:

Catholics who “back” abortion should not take Communion. Voting for a pro-choice candidate does not necessarily constitute “backing” abortion, although it may. Which of two evil human candidates one votes for is an entirely surface method of determining whether someone backs abortion.

Catholics who harbor anger against another should not take Communion.

See Matthew 5, and that gospel passim. Not many of us would be eligible - really, of course, none of is: we are all scum ​

Since the Eucharist is not a reward, and since Jesus seems to have had a remarkable fondness for the scummiest of people, maybe we should have completely open Communion. Or can’t it have its effects unless we empower it to do so, by believing that it can ? Surely the people who are not allowed to receive it, are the ones who most need it. “But they will abuse it” - no doubt; just as we constantly abuse the graces we too receive. Yet God does not cease to be merciful to us - why should He cease to be merciful to them ? I think we should stop trying to protect God from what we are capable of - He doesn’t need any protection we can offer, not after what He willingly suffered for us on Calvary. How can He be a saving God, if He is not allowed by us to mix with those who need the salvation He alone can give ?

Catholics who judge others as unworthy to sit at the table should kindly escort them out, and stay out with them because they judge themselves by the same measure.

Anyone who calls a Catholic brother “non-Catholic” because of that person’s views denies the faith and commits spiritual abortion in their heart. These people should also not take Communion.

I guess that about does it. Nobody is worthy of Communion, so we should all just excommunicate ourselves and give up.

Alan

ROFL - no disagreement there ​

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Ani Ibi:

For Catholics, abortion is an absolute. A Catholic may absolutely not vote for a candidate who promotes abortion. Period. End of discussion. Other sins are still serious but, in voting, they can be considered proportionally.

“Period. End of discussion.” makes it sound very simple. Funny thing that you are going above and beyond what the document said, prehaps to try to “absolutize” it as so many do. People don’t want to hear aboiut “proportional considerations” and stuff, they want a red-light, green-light mentality so they can judge, and do it well. Since they can’t judge hearts, they escalate behavior to the seriousness of willful defiance and thus “mortalize” something that may not be a sin.

Read again what the OP wrote:

“Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace,” the document reads.

It “might be” a sin. End of discussion. Period.

Alan

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AlanFromWichita:

Right, and what I’m saying is you have to pull up the roots with the leaves to kill the weed. Try to put aside our serious chastity problem until we have the abortion problem fixed, and you’ll do nothing but make both worse. Abortion is seen by society as a way to remove side effects from behavior we refuse to control.

Yes.

AlanFromWichita:

Different people have different priorities. If we worked no issue other than the abortion issue directly, our efforts would be futile.

Yes.

AlanFromWichita:

Abortion doesn’t just “happen” like a perfectly innocent young woman (rape victims excluded of course – that’s a different discussion) walked by a clinic and Bam! the abortionist drew her in. First, there are two people engaging in fornication and half the time the guy’s long gone by now. I’m saying to get rid of abortions and the demand will skyrocket. You have to cut the demand by reducing the flow of oiut-of-wedlock baby creations, which I’m guessing are a good number of abortions.

Yes. At the same time as really explaining in detail the Gospel of Life and teaching and modelling Catholic marriage. Society in general has a hollywood concept of marriage which centres around fallen romanticism and sex.

AlanFromWichita:

The context here is that one could outlaw all abortions which I assume you want to do? Which “every” abortionist would you leave open?

Abortion is murder. It should be treated as such.

AlanFromWichita:

Let me ask you something? If I’m being extreme by envisioning the ramifications of getting rid of all abortionists, then what is your goal? Is your goal not to do just that?

Yes. Men (and women perish) who lack vision.

AlanFromWichita:

Of course this is a relativistic protest to a perfectly valid example.

Not following you.

AlanFromWichita:

I like the idea from Kenya. Do you think the Catholic Church might consider doing that in the United States?Alan

It’s worth a try, particularly in the most at-risk groups.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Bella3502:

Make no doubt about it, legal abortion will never be overturned.

I don’t know if it will or not. But it certainly looks like it will be circumvented by other laws being enacted.

Bella3502:

That being said, it time to address the reasons why women have abortions.

Some of them we can address. The actual having of the abortion is up to the woman. She needs to be made accountable for that.

Bella3502:

Standing outside of an abortion clinic with colorful signs and a bull horn changes nothing.

This is not a dilemma. There are many roads to the same end. People do what they can. Some are good at holding signs. Some are good at saying Rosaries in parks across the street from the abortion mills. Some are good at going into the schools and teaching the Gospel of Life. And so on.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Bella3502:

Women are not going back to the days of the coat hanger.

In the days of the coat hanger, at least in North America, women were second class citizens. There was little social net if any. Those days are gone. To use the coat hanger argument turns a blind eye toward changes in societal norms and poses a false dilemma which is extremely irresponsible and dangerous.

The point about pro-life work is to explore and shed light on options – not to pose false dilemmas.

Bella3502:

I myself, don’t have a solution to the abortion problem.

Projective identification. Correction: you are not us.

Bella3502:

And it is very clear that no one else here on these forums has a viable solution.

A very extreme point of view unsubstantiated by the evidence. By the way responding to a statistical analysis by implying variables which you have determined arbitrarily, doesn’t cut it. Are you suggesting that hospitals do not keep records on their procedures and that such a practice is chosen solely on the basis of white clientele?

Bella3502:

But there is plenty of misguided talk and even more of these faces, both of which do nothing for the cause.

The cause? Specify. It sounds to me that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. It is not clear to me which side of the fence you are sitting on, or if you have even come down on one side. Frankly it reminds me of the folks on the BBC discussion boards. Full of sound and fury… and so on. What, pray tell, is your point?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Bella3502:

No one pays attention the the upscale abortion mills. That’s the advantage of having money and private doctors. Unforturnately, that’s another way the race card is played.

Nobody? Doctors keep records and participate in clinical studies. Show us the studies supporting your pov. Also, there has been much examination of the effects of inter-racial adoption. Much of the criticism of this practice has been levelled by non-white groups themselves. Witness the residential school scandals in Canada.

It seems that you are attempting to defend abortion on the basis that it benefits non-white groups. I have countered your attempt by pointing to the eugenics inextricably linked to the practice of abortion. Planned Parenthood is a child of Margaret Sanger. Her aim was to reduce the numbers of African Americans. I hardly think it was for their own good. The white-gloved bigotry and hatred in her rhetoric is in plain sight.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Ani Ibi:

Abortion is murder. It should be treated as such.

OK, then I understand you correctly.

Not following you.

It’s OK. You answered above what I was trying to ask, so please safely disregard.

Alan

 

[Ani_Ibi]

“Period. End of discussion.” makes it sound very simple. Funny thing that you are going above and beyond what the document said, prehaps to try to “absolutize” it as so many do.

Absolutize it? Is it not one of the roles of bishops (including the Bishop of Rome) to teach? Have the bishops not taught that Catholics who have had abortions or promoted abortions or brought scandal upon the Church because of their role in promoting abortions publicly–should not present themselves for communion?

Moreover the Pope has had much to say about he Religion of Relativism. I don’t think he has much of a problem with the specific absolutes involved in Magisterial teaching. Moreover, he has said that no pope can countermand these absolutes. Some things are simple. Just because a thing is simple does not mean that it is wrong or that it should be ignored.

AlanFromWichita:

People don’t want to hear aboiut “proportional considerations” and stuff, they want a red-light, green-light mentality so they can judge, and do it well.

You’ve just finished arguing against simplicity. Now you are arguing for it? ‘People’? Sounds like a generalism to me. What ‘people’ want to hear and what the Church wants them to hear are not necessarily the same thing.

AlanFromWichita:

Since they can’t judge hearts, they escalate behavior to the seriousness of willful defiance and thus “mortalize” something that may not be a sin.

Not following you. It is unwise to judge hearts. It is our nature, however, to judge behaviour. If it were not, then why Proverbs, the Commandments, and so on?

AlanFromWichita:

Read again what the OP wrote: It “might be” a sin.

Not following you. OP stands for what? Speaking about reading, here’s the Pope:

“Recognising the sacred nature of human life and its inviolability without any exceptions is not a small problem or something that can be considered part of the pluralism of opinions in modern society,” he answers.

Without any exceptions does not sound like might to me.