Vatican officials encouraging push to stop communion for pro-abort pols

[ANNE_2]

lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-officials-encouraging-push-to-stop-communion-for-pro-abort-pols

What ever happened to the MORTAL sins of SACRILEGE and SCANDAL?
.
Also what happened to our required responsibility to form a good conscience -
" CCC 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.
This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”

CCC " 1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross.
We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church. "

In the USA, there is no excuse for Catholics not knowing the truth - free of all human error or human bias.
If someone is smart enough to be elected, they are smart enough to read.

Truth and formation of good conscience is contained in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.

 

[Teelynn]

Boy, Anne, I cannot agree with you more!!! But they will argue all kinds of rational about how it should be determined according to one’s individual conscience etc, etc. Relative drivel. An excuse to avoid confrontation with the truth as far as I am concerned.

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps we should have a little pool to guess how long it will be before someone comes in and posts that we can ignore this because it was reported by Life Site News

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Perhaps we should have a little pool to guess how long it will be before someone comes in and posts that we can ignore this because it was reported by Life Site News

It is typical of Lifesitenews.The article contains information that someone claims Vatican officials said something. Its second hand yet the headline gives little evidence of that. And that’s in addition to the fact that Cardinal Burke has previously had issues with individuals misusing his words (Randall Terry),

 

[Fink]

Perhaps we should have a little pool to guess how long it will be before someone comes in and posts that we can ignore this because it was reported by Life Site News

It took a while; but it happened!

 

[ANNE_2]

It is typical of Lifesitenews.The article contains information that someone claims Vatican officials said something. Its second hand yet the headline gives little evidence of that. And that’s in addition to the fact that Cardinal Burke has previously had issues with individuals misusing his words (Randall Terry),

Please read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” regarding the grave sins of Sacrilege, Scandal and our requirement to form a good conscience guided by the authoritive teaching of the Church.
In the CCC read please also read about abortion, marriage, and homosexuality.

My post has less to do with a particular article or a particular individual - and more to do with following the required teachings of the Church as stated in the CCC.

" The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I have approved…and the publication of which I order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic Doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the Faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. **" ** - Pope John Paul II

With Religion there is no such thing as conservative or liberal Catholics, only good Catholics and bad Catholics.
Good Catholics strive to adhere to the teachings of the Church contained in the CCC.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Please read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” regarding the grave sins of Sacrilege, Scandal and our requirement to form a good conscience guided by the authoritive teaching of the Church.
In the CCC read please also read about abortion, marriage, and homosexuality.

And your point is?

My post has less to do with a particular article or a particular individual - and more to do with following the required teachings of the Church as stated in the CCC.

What’s at question is canon 915. No one is saying individuals who support abortion or gay marriage should be receiving communion. What’s at question is whether they should be refused if they approach.

 

[comrade1789]

Of course they should be excommunicated. But in today’s society, that will be a badge of honor for a pro-choice, pro-sodomy politican.

 

[ANNE_2]

And your point is?
What’s at question is canon 915. No one is saying individuals who support abortion or gay marriage should be receiving communion. What’s at question is whether they should be refused if they approach.

What is truly at question is the Doctrine of the Faith, and when 915 which supports the Doctrine will be upheld by everyone including all US Bishops.

Doctrine of the Faith is contained in the “CCC 2nd Ed”.
Footnotes at bottom of pages point to the appropriate Holy Scripture, and/or Document.

**My point is that those in the State of Mortal Sin, are forbidden to receive Holy Communion - until they repent of their sins in Confession and also make reparations - - - and this needs to be enforced uniformly throughout the USA.
**.Scandal demands public reparation.

If quoting Cardinal Burke is not enough for some, perhaps quoting Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 statement when he headed up the ‘Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’
would be helpful.
For those who are not Catholic, Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict in 2005.
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

Whether any individual likes it or not, LifeSite News is correct in their position that Abortion and Euthanasia are mortal sins, and politicians who support these can not receive Holy Communion. Neither can those who Vote for abortion politicans - without proportionate reasons.
With approximately 1MILLION murders of innocent unborn babies in the USA each year - I have not heard of any ‘proportionate reason’ for voting for a pro-abortionist politician at this time.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

If Judas was allowed to partake in the first communion then why not pro-choice politicians?

 

[Brownginger]

When Archbishops Dolan, Burke, Chaput, and others who are considered conservative and politically “active” simply come out in public and state that they will refuse communion to anyone who publicly encourages abortion, whether or not he or she may be an elected official, there will continue to be outrageous sacrilege and scandal vis-a-vis the Holy Eucharist.

It does not seem to be a difficult question, but the need for charity might outweigh the other needs, to a point. Why would it take years for a public proclamation regarding these politicians? Merely to privately recommend that one not receive Holy Communion does nothing to shed light on the gravity of the sin of giving scandal, regardless of the “conscience” of the person involved. It is realm of the bishop to determine if a conscience has properly been formed. Bishops can deny access to many of the Church’s sacraments,etc., based on proper evidence. In so doing, they may have come to a conclusion that ultimately is erroneous; but their defense of the Church is not therefor unreasonable.

In the meantime, it is the responsibility of the laity in the home dioceses of such politicians and others to make public the teachings of the Church and the relevant falsehoods. We must contact any pro-abortion politician claiming to be Catholic and to explain our outrage at the fact that he or she continues to receive the Holy Eucharist – if we are certain that that be the case. Finally, we must pray for these and all politicians – and for faithful people to replace those who are in error. Times are looking good that we can rid the Congress of many of them in 2012.

 

[Teelynn]

And your point is?

What’s at question is canon 915. No one is saying individuals who support abortion or gay marriage should be receiving communion. What’s at question is whether they should be refused if they approach.

Here is a question that haunts me…why on earth should canon 915 be “up to whatever or however a particular Bishop deems it should be interpreted”? That in and of itself is the relativism that has been manifested ad nauseum since the 1970’s. Objective truth should be the only thing that prevails within the Church of Christ.

If it is a “public” scandal, it should be handled “publically”. If the recipient in question repents privately with promise to reverse support, then of course they should be allowed to approach, if not, they should not. The relativism that has run rampant has done a real number on the Church.

 

[PatriceA]

If Judas was allowed to partake in the first communion then why not pro-choice politicians?

Because Judas’s betrayal hadn’t come into fact yet before the Last Supper. But a pro-choice Catholic politician publicly acknowledges his sin and is a matter of public record.

 

[estesbob]

If Judas was allowed to partake in the first communion then why not pro-choice politicians?

I don’t recall him partaking in communion after he committed the sin of betraying Jesus? , I am pleased, however, to see you equating the betrayal of Jesus with support of abortion.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Because Judas’s betrayal hadn’t come into fact yet before the Last Supper.

Jesus knew for a fact that it would happen and offered it to him anyway. Judas may not have engaged in the act of betrayal prior to the Last Supper but he was guilty of a sin of intention.

But a pro-choice Catholic politician publicly acknowledges his sin and is a matter of public record.

Whether a sin is public or private is irrelevant. A sin is a sin is a sin.

 

[estesbob]

Jesus knew for a fact that it would happen and offered it to him anyway. Judas may not have engaged in the act of betrayal prior to the Last Supper but he was guilty of a sin of intention.

Jesus knows all of us will sin so based on your interpretation nobody should receive communion.

Public sin has a greater impact on the culture. for instance, is one thing to privately support abortion, quite another for a leader to do so and even worse yet to present themselves for communion as if their support of abortion is moral.

. I know it is the hallmark of the so-called “progressive” Catholic to try and build a wall between their political views and their faith but such an attitude is unsupportable by the teachings of the church.

[/QUOTE]

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Jesus knows all of us will sin so based on your interpretation nobody should receive communion.

Everyone should receive communion. If Jesus himself never denied anyone communion then why should any man and on what biblical grounds? I confess myself ignorant of the biblical basis for the denial of the eucharist.

 

[estesbob]

Everyone should receive communion. If Jesus himself never denied anyone communion then why should any man and on what grounds? I confess myself ignorant of the biblical basis for the denial of the eucharist.

I’m always quite amused when agnostics lecture Catholics on Catholic theology.

 

[PatriceA]

Everyone should receive communion. If Jesus himself never denied anyone communion then why should any man and on what biblical grounds? I confess myself ignorant of the biblical basis for the denial of the eucharist.

Doesn’t matter if you are ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church and the biblical basis for the denial of the Eucharist. A Catholic, public official or otherwise, is bound by our teachings and when one can receive the Eucharist and when they can not. Publicly supporting abortion (murder) places the politician’s soul in a state of moral sin. Labeling themselves as pro-choice means they are not planning to refrain from committing the same sin, which is a required in the sacrament of reconciliation. If they want to continue to be pro-choice and receive communion, they need to find a denomination that allows that but it can’t be in the Catholic Church.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I’m always quite amused when agnostics lecture Catholics on Catholic theology.

I’m not lecturing anyone. It was a legitimate question. What biblical basis is there for denying the eucharist to anyone?