Hli Priest Speaks Out On Denying Holy Communion

[qfnol31]

[quote]...'Undermining the church'
The letter questioned how the bishops could limit the denial of Communion to abortion, noting that Pope John Paul II and many U.S. bishops have condemned the death penalty...[/quote]

I don't find this part very accurate. (msnbc's thing)

[MC Just]

i really need some feedback on my later, what do ya'll think.

[IcePrincessKRS]

BUMP (sounds pretty good to me )

Jake, Ironmonk, you guys seem to be the expert letter-writers around here. Any advice/pointers for MCJust before he sends it?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey everyone, just a thought here. I'm as angry as the rest of you about this whole thing. Its terribly sad that people reject the Church's teachings, convince themselves that they are not in mortal sin, when they know full well the teaching and claim to be "formed," and, most of all, it is depressingly sad that these people feel they have a "right" to receive with blemishes upon their soul.

However, I think we must take a step back for a second. The letter was amazing until the last lines..."Get the Hell Out" rang in my ears like a warped and blackened Church Bell. And, sad to say it, much of what I have read on this postboard so far has appeared to flirt dangerously close to a lack of charity.

Righteous Indignation is good, as Christ showed us in the Temple and the Church has taught throughout history, but we should never let anger get the best of us. No bishop or priest will ever allow a man or women who they KNOW TO BE IN MORTAL SIN to receive Christ into their body, just as Christ would not allow the temple to be defiled. Sarcasm, however, will not turn into flesh a heart of stone.

These men and woman cannot receive the blessed sacrament. This is not an option. We cannot allow ourselves to be led into anger or wrath. This too, is not an option.

We must speak with Charity, but with the firm Charity of Truth.3

[Jake Huether]

MC Just,

The letter was good. May I suggest letting it sit for a few days, then re-read it, and then send it. Sometimes I'll write something very heartfelt and accurate, but upon reflection later I see things that I might have written differently. Our goal is to inform them, not necessarily to slam dunk them. The old saying "you catch more bees with honey" is good advice. If it is well written, it will indeed strike a cord with these peeps. But it won't shut them down. The Holy Spirit will convict them. But if it is written such that it simply aggrivates them, then you've not only lost the battle, but you might have also done more damage.

When you write, think about the end result. Don't always write simply to defend the Church. The defense of the Church shouldn't be the end of the letter. The intent to defend the Church is good, but the end result should always be an attempt to bring the soul back to God and His Church.

That's my advice anyway.

I haven't yet read the letter these guys wrote, so I've not yet been inspired to write my own rep. But if I do, I'll post the letter too.

God bless and continue the fight for truth.

[MC Just]

Cool! thanks.

[Jake Huether]

It might do good to analyze the letter, and see where these Political figures are missing the mark. With that info, we might write them to show them where they have missunderstood something.




[quote]We the undersigned, are Catholic Members of Congress who are increasingly concerned about statements made recently by some members of the Catholic hierarchy indicating that the sacrament of communion should be withheld from certain Catholic legislators because of their votes on public issues. The focus has been on legislators' pro-choice position on abortion but this raises much broader issues that concern all of us.[/quote]

Not much to comment on there.


[quote]We firmly believe that it would be wrong for a bishop to deny the sacrament of holy communion to an individal on the basis of a voting record. [/quote]


The Bishops are not going to deny the Sacrament of Holy Communion from "an individual on the basis of a voting record", as it would be darn near impossible for the Church to even compile the billions of votes cast by individuals in order to find out who's voting pro-abortion. The Bishops wish to deny the Sacrament to PUBLIC FIGURES who PUBLICALLY support abortion. If the Bishops can positivly identify a person who is objectively and subjectively sinning Mortally in public, then it is their duty to withhold Communion from them, in an effort not to defend the Church, but to save the person's soul from incurring greater mortal sin.

[quote]We believe that such an action would be counter-productive and would bring great harm to the Church.[/quote]

Christ brought great harm to Himself to save us all. The Bishops, acting on behalf of the Church, MUST risk "great harm to the Church" (and, by the way, Christ promised that "great harm" would never overcome the Church) in order to save souls.

[quote]Our concerns about the apparent threat of withholding a sacrament in order to influence how a legislator acts go beyond the issue of pro-choice or pro-life, as indicated by the fact that some of the undersigned have "pro-life" voting records. [/quote]


Again, they miss the mark. Communion is not withheald in order to influence how a legislator acts. Communion is withheld to preserve the soul of the individual at the present. It isn't an act done to cause a future event. It is an act done to prevent a sin.

[quote]While some of us differ on this issue, each and every one of us is committed to the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social justice - helping the poor and underprivileged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and insuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country.[/quote]

They are committed to the "basic principles...of Catholic social justice"? Oh... Okay, then I guess they can recieve Jesus in the Eucharist! LOL. There are no "basic principles" of Catholicism. It's a whole, or it's protestant. If they want to pick, then maybe they should join the closest Protestant denom and recieve the symbole of Christ, not Christ himself. Why would they wish to recieve "COMMUNION", when they themselves admit that they "DIFFER" on this issue. If they are different, then they are not in communion. It's one or the other.



[quote]We also emphasize that legislators viewed as "pro-choice" can and do take steps every day in their Congressional lives to advance respect for life and respect for the dignity of every human being. In fact, many of us became members of Congress to do just that. [/quote]


This has got to be the greatest lie there is. Oh, we promote the choice to murder innocent babies, but we do all we can to advance respect for life and dahdahdah. Blah. Blatant hypocrisy!


[quote]That commitment involves different things for different legislators but includes pushing for real health care reform, reluctance before war and promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. [/quote]

This is another lie. Name me a polititian who is pro-choice, who has come up with any form of legislation (even at it's very early stages) that would promote an alternative to abortion. There is really no such thing as pro-choice, because they don't advocate a choice, they represent only the choice to murder.


[quote]Some of those who are viewed as pro-choice have voiced opposition to capital punishment, and are active on other issues affecting life, including hunger relief and human rights. [/quote]

Which is just plain silly. How can one respect the life of a murderer, and yet advocate the choice to murder an innocent baby? It has nothing to do with sesitivity and charity and love. It's a big political game to get the most votes! And they should know that it IS okay to be Catholic and promote capital punishment for the right reasons. It is not, however, an option to be Catholic and pro-"choice".





[quote]At the same time, we live in a nation of laws and the Supreme Court has declared that our Constitution provides women with a right to an abortion. [/quote]


Right, the Supreme Court has declared... But what does the Constitution really say? Does it say that women have the right to kill their children. No? The Supreme Court, unfortunatly, has missinterpreted the Constitution, along with their misinformation on the reality of human life and it's beginning. The Supreme Court has grievously errored. Because Life, Liberty, etc. are granted to ALL. And "all" included unborn humans as well. Women have rights! I agree. But where's the definition of "women" and show me where this shouldn't include the unborn women as well.



[quote]Members who vote for legislation consistent with that mandate are not acting contrary to our positions as faithful members of the Catholic Church. [/quote]


Yes they are.


[quote]We also do not believe that it is the obligation of legislators to prohibit all conduct which we may, as a matter of personal morality, believe is wrong. [/quote]


So, the believe in relativism? What's wrong for them, really isn't wrong wrong. It's more just like a preference. They don't prefer it, but it isn't "bad". How can they believe something is wrong, and yet advise others to do it. That's just bad politics then if you ask me.


[quote]Likewise, as Catholics, we do not believe it is our role to legislate the teachings of the Catholic Church. [/quote]


So in otherwords, they don't believe the Church is right?? Are the teachings meant for everyone? Or are they only meant for those who choose them? It just doesn't make sense. Do they believe the Teachings or not?



[quote]For any of us to be singled out by any bishop by the refusal of communion or other public criticism because we vote in what we believe are the requirements of the United States Constitution and laws of our country, which we are sworn to uphold.is deeply hurtful.  [/quote]


Give me a break. It isn't "public criticism". Stop thinking of yourself for once. The Church is doing it for YOUR own good. Not hers. She's keeping you from greater sin.






[quote]We would remind those who would deny us participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist that we are sworn to represent all Americans, not just Catholics. [/quote]


Oh, and so if ALL Americans believed that it's okay to murder, should you support that too? Should ALL Americans believe that stealing is okay, should you support that? Don't lie to yourself.


[quote]Church leaders must recognize, as did the great Catholic theologian and scholar John Courtney Murray, that in public life distinctions must be made between public and private morality. Because we represent all of our constituents we must, at times, separate our public actions from our personal beliefs.[/quote]


Hogwash. As the great philosopher Jerry Maguire once said, "show me the money". That's all it's about. They want to votes. They want to crowd.


[quote]As the bishops of the United States recently emphasized in the publication Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility, "In the Catholic tradition, responsible citizenship. Is a virtue; participation in the political process is a moral obligation." As legislators chosen by the peoplewe represent, we take that moral obligation seriously. This means that we are called to represent the views of our constituents even when those views may conflict with some of our personal views.[/quote]


We're talking about making murder legal. Umm. Do Americans know what's best for them??

[quote]If Catholic legislators are scorned and held out for ridicule by Church leaders on the basis of a single issue, the Church will lose strong advocates on a wide range of issues that relate to the core of important Ca1holic social teaching. [/quote]

Wait a second here. When has the Church "held out from ridicule" any politition? And it sound here like their threatening the Church? LOL. Oooooh, if you don't stop, you're going to loos advocates. LOL. The Church doesn't need the likes of advocates that only advocate part of the Teachings anyway.



[quote]Moreover, criticism of us on a matter that is essentially one of personal morality will deter other Catholics from entering politics, and in the long run the Church will suffer. [/quote]


"Essentially one of personal morality" eh? Oh wise one, define what "personal morality" means? It's only moral for some and not for others. Come on...



[quote]For many years Catholics were denied public office by voters who feared that they would take direction from the Pope. Opponents to John F. Kennedy expressed the. view that, if elected, his first act would be to build a tunnel from the White House to Rome. While that type of paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past, attempts by Church leaders today to influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice, which so many of us have worked so hard to overcome.[/quote]

It isn't a matter of influenceing votes. It's a matter of saving YOUR buttox.



[quote]Nor do we see how the bishops could 1imit this punishment to the pro-choice issue alone, and we are troubled by the possible consequences of proceeding down this road. [/quote]

Well trouble yourself no more. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit (who you should believe in). So, no matter what she descides, it will be good.




[quote]Both the Holy Father and members of the U.S. hierarchy have condemned the death penalty, as well as the war in Iraq. [/quote]


No they haven't. And even if they did, this is not a Teaching of the Church. Look it up in the Catechism. Abortion is evil. Death penalty is permissible in certain circumstances. War too.


[quote]Will an individual bishop decide to deny communion to a legislator -Republican or Democrat - who has voted in favor of the death penalty? Will another bishop decide to communion to a legislator who authorized the war in Iraq? [/quote]


No because this is a subjective matter. War and the death penalty are not objective sins. Murder is.


[quote]Such conduct would foster division within the Church as well as division between the hierarchy and the laity. [/quote]

For sure it would. But that conduct will not happen, because, like I said, war and the death penalty are not objective sins.


[quote]And allowing a bishop to take actions that lead to involvement in partisan politics wou1d be detrimental to the Church. As the USCCB recognizes in Faithful Citizenship. “The Catholic community is large and diverse. We are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.” Unfortunately, tbe threats of some bishops to withhold communion from "pro-choice legislators has the effect of miring the Church in partisan politics and allowing the Church to be used for partisan purposes.[/quote]


It doesn't matter what the USCCB or anyone thinks. Recieving Jesus in the Eucharist in mortal sin is itself a mortal sin. The Church is obliged to rescue us from sin, when she can. And to deny the Eucharist to one who is unworthy, is one such obligation. She, obviously cannot know who among us is in sin, but she can know, when that individual publicly manifests their sin.


[quote]
All of us firmly believe that we can be good Congresspersons and good Catholics and we respectfully submit that, while sometimes difficult, each of us has the responsibility and the right to balance publiv morality with private morality without pressure from certain bishops. [/quote]


Morality is morality. There is no such thing as public and private morality. That's a silly made up thing. How can what is moral for one person be immoral for another? Is God a God of lies?


[quote]While we do not question the authority of the bishops, we respectfully submit that each of us is in the best position to know the state of our soul and our relationship to God and our Church. Therefore, each of God's children should be the final judge as to whether it is appropriate for them to receive the sacrament of communion.[/quote]

The Church could only hope that we would be such good stuwards of the Temples of the Holy Spirit that we are. But when we publically manifest our sin, there is no doubt that you are unworthy to recieve God in Communion.

[quote]We raise these issues, not just to address the immediate reports about the pro-choice issue, but to underscore importance of Catholic teachings to all of us. It is reflected in the broad range of issues where we have so much affinity with the Church. The Church has played a central role in all of our lives and instilled in us a value system that drives us to fight for a. better life for all Americans. [/quote]


Blatant lie. They promote the death of millions of Americans yearly, and then say that this derived from a value system which the Church gave them. LOL.



[quote]We value the Church, its teachings and are proud to be Catholics.[/quote]

But unfortunatly, in supporting abortion, they are not really Catholics (i.e. Universal). If you don't support what the Church teaches, then you are not a Catholic, or at the very least a poor Catholic.

[quote]We thank you for attention to this important issue. When your schedule permits, representatives of our group would appreciate the opportunity of meeting with you and if, you feel it appropriate, other members of your task force, so that we may begin a dialogue on these issues which are so important to the Church and to us. In the meantime, feel free to share this letter with your fellow bishops.[/quote]

Nuff said.

I'm going to write my rep...

Pray for them and pray for me.

[Jake Huether]

Grrrr. I'll have to write 12 peeps. Is it surprising that 12 of these people are from California?

[Dave]

Great work, MC Just! And Jake, God bless your letter-writing efforts too!

[IcePrincessKRS]

I knew you'd come through for us Jake! Thanks!

[Jake Huether]

Thanks! I get all fired up when I hear such lies.

Especially when it means millions of babies are dying.

[Jake Huether]

Well, as I wasn't in the district of any of Cal's Catholic Congresspeeps, most of them wouldn't allow me to email them. So I was only able to send 2 emails to reps that didn't have that particular blockage. I might consider snail male for the others - if time permits.

Here's what I wrote. It's like what I posted to you guys, but cleaned up a bit:



Dear Congress member,

May the Peace of our Lord Jesus Christ fill your heart!

As a Catholic, and as an American, I am writing to you to express my deep regret that you have been listed among those to sign a certain letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick. My sadness is a product of a few things: Above all, I am profoundly grief stricken at the fact that abortion continues to be advocated under the guise of “choice”. Secondary to this is that as Catholics, and as pro-abortion public figures, you are receiving Jesus Christ in the Eucharist while denying His very teachings in regards to abortion. And thirdly, in reading the Congress member’s letter it became clear to me that those Catholic Congress members who have written this really are not well informed on the faith that they profess. I have quoted bellow from this letter several passages that confirm these misconceptions that are expressed, and I have attached comments to them in order to clarify the Churches stance. I would encourage you, as a Catholic, to familiarize yourself with the Teachings of the Church, in order that your conscience may be even better informed, and also so that, as a Politician, you do not render yourself as unreliable (in that you profess to be a Catholic, and yet you do not understand the Catholic Teachings).

May God be with you, and may you know His Love and Peace.






QUOTE
We firmly believe that it would be wrong for a bishop to deny the sacrament of holy communion to an individal on the basis of a voting record.



The Bishops are not going to deny the Sacrament of Holy Communion from "an individual on the basis of a voting record", as it would be impossible for the Church to even compile the billions of votes cast by individuals in order to find out who's voting pro-abortion. The Bishops wish to deny the Sacrament only to public figures who publicly support abortion. If the Bishops can positively identify a person who is objectively and subjectively sinning Mortally in public, then it is their duty to withhold Communion from them, in an effort not to defend the Church, but to save the person's soul from incurring greater mortal sin.


QUOTE
We believe that such an action would be counter-productive and would bring great harm to the Church.


Christ brought great harm to Himself to save us all. The Bishops, acting on behalf of the Church, MUST risk "great harm to the Church" (and, by the way, Christ promised that "great harm" would never overcome the Church) in order to save souls.


QUOTE
Our concerns about the apparent threat of withholding a sacrament in order to influence how a legislator acts go beyond the issue of pro-choice or pro-life, as indicated by the fact that some of the undersigned have "pro-life" voting records.



Again, Communion is not withheld in order to influence how a legislator acts. Communion is withheld to preserve the soul of the individual at the present. It is not an act done to cause a future event. It is an act done to prevent a sin.


QUOTE
While some of us differ on this issue, each and every one of us is committed to the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social justice - helping the poor and underprivileged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and insuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country.


There are no "basic principles" of Catholicism. It is a whole. If it is not a whole, then it is less than Catholic. If one “protests” a teaching of the Church, then effectively they are Protestant. So, it is interesting to me why one would wish to receive "communion", when they themselves admit that they "differ" on this issue. If they are different, then they are not in communion, and should therefore not even wish to profess a communion. Is this not sending a mixed message to voters? If a politician receives communion with the Catholic Church, stating that they are in communion with her beliefs, then one would conclude that they would have to be pro-life. But then their public position states that they are pro-choice. This really isn’t being very straightforward.




QUOTE
We also emphasize that legislators viewed as "pro-choice" can and do take steps every day in their Congressional lives to advance respect for life and respect for the dignity of every human being. In fact, many of us became members of Congress to do just that.



I understand that many Congress members have great respect for life, and that it is this reason that many have dedicated their lives to this service. However, our faith dictates to us, and modern technology has confirmed, that “every human being” includes those human beings who are still in their mothers’ wombs. And therefore, it is simply impossible to profess to advance respect for life, when one at the same time professes to uphold a woman’s “right” to abortion, which is the termination of life.



QUOTE
Some of those who are viewed as pro-choice have voiced opposition to capital punishment, and are active on other issues affecting life, including hunger relief and human rights.


Again I am baffled at how can one respect the life of a murderer, and yet advocate the choice to murder an innocent baby? Furthermore, as Catholics, we are Taught by the Church that it is okay to be Catholic and promote capital punishment for the right reasons. It is not, however, an option to be Catholic and support the murder of innocent children in the name of “choice”.






QUOTE
At the same time, we live in a nation of laws and the Supreme Court has declared that our Constitution provides women with a right to an abortion.



Right, the Supreme Court has declared... But what does the Constitution really say? Does it say that women have the right to kill their children. No? The Supreme Court, unfortunately, has misinterpreted the Constitution, along with their misinformation on the reality of human life and it's beginning. The Supreme Court has grievously erred. Because Life, Liberty, etc. are granted to all, and "all" includes unborn humans as well. Women have rights! I agree. But it has already been established that no one has the “right” to murder. It has also been established that an unborn baby is a human, and feels pain within the first few weeks of it’s conception, which is much sooner than when most abortions take place! The “choice” if there is one, should be not to have sex unless one is prepared to have children – the natural consequence of sex.




QUOTE
Members who vote for legislation consistent with that mandate are not acting contrary to our positions as faithful members of the Catholic Church.



In so many words, yes they are. One cannot be a Catholic and reject Catholic Teachings. One cannot promote or support or ensure the right to abortion, when one is Catholic.



QUOTE
We also do not believe that it is the obligation of legislators to prohibit all conduct which we may, as a matter of personal morality, believe is wrong.



So, they believe in relativism? What's wrong for them really isn't wrong wrong. It's more just like a preference. They don't prefer it, but it isn't "bad". How can they believe something is wrong, and yet advise others to do it? It seems to me that this is something that can either make or break a politician. Is it not bad politics to fight for that which one does not believe?



QUOTE
Likewise, as Catholics, we do not believe it is our role to legislate the teachings of the Catholic Church.


As a legislator, it would be ones role to legislate that which would serve to protect humanity, more specifically American humanity. And the only way to protect humanity is to enforce a way of life which corresponds to the life which God intended one to live. And as Catholics we believe that God intended humanity to live according to the Teachings of His Church. So it would be a grave error to legislate teachings which are contrary to the natural order of life! It would be a grave error to legislate teachings that would ultimately destroy American humanity, regardless of whether or not America preferred to destroy itself! We are ensured to right to the freedom of speech. Yet is it not against the law to yell fire in a theater or bomb in an airport. There are certain freedoms which cannot be granted because they would infringe upon the freedom of others, and if granted have the potential to destroy human life. Abortion is another such anomaly. We cannot grant women the right to abortion, because it infringes upon the right to the child who is being aborted, and it has effectively killed 45 million Americans since the early 70’s. This isn’t only “Catholic Teaching”, but it is reasonable and logical.




QUOTE
For any of us to be singled out by any bishop by the refusal of communion or other public criticism because we vote in what we believe are the requirements of the United States Constitution and laws of our country, which we are sworn to uphold.is deeply hurtful.



It isn't "public criticism". The Church is doing it for the good of the individuals soul. Not hers. She's keeping them from greater sin. The Church is a parent, not just an authority. Is it wrong for a mother to scorn her child in a public grocery store when the child will not obey? It isn’t public criticism. No. It is her duty.







QUOTE
We would remind those who would deny us participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist that we are sworn to represent all Americans, not just Catholics.



Legislators are sworn to represent all Americans, but they are first and foremost sworn to protect all Americans – even from themselves. Being Catholic isn’t like being in a fraternity or sorority. It isn’t an elitist group, or special club. Being Catholic is a lifestyle. It is the way in which we were all created to live. God has revealed to us that this is the way in which we are to live in harmony with the Natural Order in which we were created. By your oath, effectively, you have sworn, therefore, to represent and protect all Americans according to the Teachings of the Catholic Church, which is for their own good. And furthermore, by professing to be Catholic, you have represented yourself as a person who will uphold Catholic teachings. And therefore, if you expect to be inducted or elected as an official who is Catholic, then it would follow quite rightly that those Americans whom you represent should know this. And if you are elected, despite, or because of your Catholic faith, then it should not be a surprise that you uphold Catholic Teachings! If this is not your belief, then there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of being Catholic, which needs to be resolved. If you aren’t Catholic, then voters should be aware of this.



QUOTE
Church leaders must recognize, as did the great Catholic theologian and scholar John Courtney Murray, that in public life distinctions must be made between public and private morality. Because we represent all of our constituents we must, at times, separate our public actions from our personal beliefs.



There really is no such thing as public and private morality. Morality isn’t relative to anything but God. Catholic Teachings are the epitome of morality. It is as black and white as that. One cannot have a set of public moralities that conflict with their own private moralities. If something is immoral, than it is such publicly and privately. And if a public figure is being immoral publicly, then the Church can and should deny this person Holy Communion (because publicly they have expressed their disunion with the Church).



QUOTE
If Catholic legislators are scorned and held out for ridicule by Church leaders on the basis of a single issue, the Church will lose strong advocates on a wide range of issues that relate to the core of important Ca1holic social teaching.


This section of the letter seemingly threatens the Church with the loss of “strong advocates”. I would only like to remind the writers of this letter that the Church has not “strong advocates”. We are all sinners, up to and including the Pope himself. The Church has survived for 2000 years without error due to one and only one Advocate. And that is the Holy Spirit of God. The loss of advocates, as strong as they may be, can not be an incentive for the Church to allow one to receive Jesus Christ in His Glory in the Eucharist while in mortal sin.




QUOTE
Moreover, criticism of us on a matter that is essentially one of personal morality will deter other Catholics from entering politics, and in the long run the Church will suffer.



Again, morality is objective. It is not subjective. We are given a list of items which are immoral, murder being one of them, and whether we personally or publicly believe it is immoral does not change the fact of what it is. It has been proven scientifically that life begins at conception. It has further been proven that the unborn child can feel pain. And we already have a set of laws which identify murder as being the illegal killing of a human being. I don’t quite understand how one might personally believe this to be true, yet publicly believe one aspect of these to be untrue. I don’t see how the argument continues to exist. “A mothers choice” seems just to be a silent mumble in the background of the shout of the dying innocents. Should a mother have the choice to kill her born child? And if not, why? Since a child can be born as little as 5 months into the pregnancy, it really has me baffled as to how these women can say that this isn’t a human life.




QUOTE
For many years Catholics were denied public office by voters who feared that they would take direction from the Pope. Opponents to John F. Kennedy expressed the. view that, if elected, his first act would be to build a tunnel from the White House to Rome. While that type of paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past, attempts by Church leaders today to influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice, which so many of us have worked so hard to overcome.


It isn't a matter of influencing votes. It's a matter of preserving ones soul. And in the name of Jesus Christ isn’t it better to be denied election than to sacrifice ones soul. Would you not rather be denied election knowing that it was because you believed in God’s Church, than to be elected for but a short time here on earth only to have to explain later to God why you publicly supported killing unborn babies? Jesus tells you, “blessed are those who are persecuted…” And yet Catholic politicians shun persecution in the name of votes. If God wants you elected, trust that despite being Catholic, and adhering to Catholic Teaching, He will get you into office.




QUOTE
Nor do we see how the bishops could 1imit this punishment to the pro-choice issue alone, and we are troubled by the possible consequences of proceeding down this road.

The Holy Spirit guides the Church. So, no matter what she decides, it will be good. The Church knows that she cannot judge each and every individuals soul. The Church can, however, based on public information, withhold Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, from a person who publicly supports teachings and laws that are in conflict with the Communion of the Church.







QUOTE
Both the Holy Father and members of the U.S. hierarchy have condemned the death penalty, as well as the war in Iraq.



I am sorry to inform you, but this is not true. This is not a Teaching of the Church. There is much to be said of these issues in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But a Popes personal opinion on the war or on the death penalty is not the Teachings of the Church. The Church teaches us that there are instances where the death penalty is necessary. And it likewise teaches that a just war is not in conflict with the Teachings of Christ. The death penalty and war in and of themselves are not evil. They are tools that may be used for an evil end. But they themselves are not. On the contrary, there are no instances where abortion is acceptable, just as there are no instances where murder is acceptable. Abortion itself is evil through and through.



QUOTE
Will an individual bishop decide to deny communion to a legislator -Republican or Democrat - who has voted in favor of the death penalty? Will another bishop decide to communion to a legislator who authorized the war in Iraq?



No because this is a subjective matter. War and the death penalty are not objective sins. Murder is.



QUOTE
Such conduct would foster division within the Church as well as division between the hierarchy and the laity.


For sure it would. But that conduct will not happen, because, like I said, war and the death penalty are not objective sins.



QUOTE
And allowing a bishop to take actions that lead to involvement in partisan politics wou1d be detrimental to the Church. As the USCCB recognizes in Faithful Citizenship. “The Catholic community is large and diverse. We are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.” Unfortunately, tbe threats of some bishops to withhold communion from "pro-choice legislators has the effect of miring the Church in partisan politics and allowing the Church to be used for partisan purposes.



It doesn't matter what the USCCB or anyone thinks. Receiving Jesus in the Eucharist in mortal sin is itself a mortal sin. The Church is obliged to rescue us from sin, when she can. And to deny the Eucharist to one who is unworthy, is one such obligation. She, obviously cannot know who among us is in sin, but she can know, when that individual publicly manifests their sin.



QUOTE
All of us firmly believe that we can be good Congresspersons and good Catholics and we respectfully submit that, while sometimes difficult, each of us has the responsibility and the right to balance publiv morality with private morality without pressure from certain bishops.



Morality is morality. There is no such thing as public and private morality.



QUOTE
While we do not question the authority of the bishops, we respectfully submit that each of us is in the best position to know the state of our soul and our relationship to God and our Church. Therefore, each of God's children should be the final judge as to whether it is appropriate for them to receive the sacrament of communion.


The Church could only hope that we would be such good stewards of the Temples of the Holy Spirit that we are. But when we publicly manifest our sin, there is no doubt that you are unworthy to receive God in Communion.


QUOTE
We raise these issues, not just to address the immediate reports about the pro-choice issue, but to underscore importance of Catholic teachings to all of us. It is reflected in the broad range of issues where we have so much affinity with the Church. The Church has played a central role in all of our lives and instilled in us a value system that drives us to fight for a. better life for all Americans.



And so the Congress members promote the death of millions of Americans yearly, and then say that this derived from a value system which the Church gave them. One cannot say that they fight for all Americans, when millions of Americans have died due to their legislation. The Church certainly has not influenced this sort of value system.


I urge you, Congress member, in the name of Jesus Christ, please reconsider your stance on abortion. Please, publicly renounce your promotion of this abominable act, and return to the bosom of the Church, where you might freely receive Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Most Holy Eucharist!

You are in my prayers.

May the Lord be with you in your thoughts and in your deeds.

God bless you.

Sincerely,

Mr. Jacob Huether

[IcePrincessKRS]

:cheer: