Pro Aborts And Communion

[Iacobus]

Okay this is my take on it and correct me if I err.

I see it as this.


Pro aborts are not in a state of grace

Therefore pro aborts are unable to recive communion

Nothing prevents a pro abort from going to confession and/or changing his/her mind

Telling a priest to refuse communion to a pro abort is wrong, it is that pro aborts job to not go up for communion if he is not in a state of grace. Also the priest is to assume a preson is in a state of grace unless that person proves his non state of graceness in front of the priest and has not been to confession (i.e. right before Mass, or is wearing something like a pro abort sash or pin or shirt or something like a sign).


So isn't a bishop telling his priest not to admister communion to polticians who have been know to be pro abort over stepping his bounds? Communion is the soruce and summit of our exsitance and isn't something to be played around with, I agree. But how does the Bishop or priest or cardinal or whomever know that Mr. Pro abort hasn't changed and gone to confession. It seems to me to be a very dangrous and risky thing to declear with creitianty that a pro abort cannot recive and doesn't take into consdiration man's ablity to change.

Just some thoughts.

[RandomProddy]

It's really simple. The Euchairst is not a political forum and never shall it be.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

One could also say that the scandal they commit must be amended, or at least, that they must attempt to amend it, before they should be permitted again to Holy Communion. We say in the Act of Contrition that we wish to amend our sins as well as confess them. If a politician confesses, then he should also amend his ways publicly. Confession may be private, but sin affects us all. Furthermore, a politician who at one point supports abortion but then goes to Confession for it seems to me either to be committing the sin of presumption or to be of a truly penitent heart. I hope it is the latter. However, a politician of a truly penitent heart would have no problem amending his own opinions and amending the scandal he has committed. If a formerly pro-abortion politician does not publicly repent, then it seems he either isn't fully pro-life, isn't fully penitent, or isn't fully hopeful that doing the right thing will be best for him. If he is truly repentant, but still will not be so publicly, then it seems he is one of the good men who will not stand, of which it is said that they are the only thing evil needs to triumph.

In any event, I think that the bishops, in union with the pope, especially in light of recent encyclicals and pastoral letters, know exactly what they are doing and are right for doing it.

[ThyWillBeDone]

The way I think it works is like this. If a polticians publicly makes statements and works to keep abortion legal they are in a state of sin. In order to be forgiven of this public sin they must public renounce their previous pro-abortion stance. So if they have not public renounce they pro-abortion stance then they can and should be denied the eucharist. At least I think that is how it works.
Chris

[cmotherofpirl]

A politician is not an ordinary private person. If he has voted for pro-death legislation then he has publically denied a teaching of the Church that is pro-life.

Recieving Holy Communion is a public act stating you believe the teachings of the Church, that you are in communio.
A pro-death politician recieving Holy Communion is a public scandal and a grave sin.

It would be like Hugh Hefner walking out the playboy mansion and into church and recieving communion.

Or an abortionist.

Edited July 2, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[BurkeFan]

This is the way I see it (from a paper I wrote):
Also available [url="http://home.comcast.net/~davesailer/SailerCSTFinal.pdf"]here[/url]

In September of 1960, John Fitzgerald Kennedy addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in order to allay fears that having a Catholic in the White House would mean foreign control, or rather, that the Pope would have control of the United States. Kennedy began the precedent that later grew to allow Catholics holding political office to run far away from the Church and hold positions completely antithetical to her teachings. Numerous and often persuasive arguments have come up regarding the relationship between the Catholic Church and politicians who claim to be Catholic. This is a unique and complex problem. In a culture in which separation of church and state is the state religion, what is the proper role of the Church? Can the Church instruct Catholic politicians on how to vote on certain matters? The answer to both of these questions comes clear when one looks at the social teaching of the Church, especially in regards to the relationship of the Church and state. The Church not only has the right, it has the duty, to guide Catholic politicians and the state on certain matters.
Over the years, numerous defenses of this schizophrenic position have been given, most of which begin with Mario Cuomo’s phrase, “I’m personally opposed, but…” This phrase, coined during a 1984 speech by Cuomo at Notre Dame, is often used to explain how Catholic politicians, who, as an article of faith, are supposed to believe that life is good, can vigorously support and defend abortion and euthanasia. Usually, along with the ‘personally opposed’ bit, there is a distinction drawn between private and public consciences. This often amounts to the politician saying that they personally hold and believe certain principles, but, while voting, they follow their public conscience, which is formed in accord with the societal standards of morality, or lack thereof. The public conscience is also defended by the claim that those in public office should not ‘impose’ their ‘personal morality’ (i.e., private conscience) upon the public. Another form of the defense makes a claim towards the supposed separation of church and state in America. What this is often taken to mean is that a politician’s votes should not be informed by his religious faith since this would entail a violation of the separation of church and state. These excuses are still running rampant, serving as scapegoats for those who would go against the principles of their faith for political gain, while claiming to be loyal and faithful Catholics. This is an extremely distressing development in political life over the last forty years, primarily due to the prominence of the politicians who claim to be Catholic as well as the issues at stake in the issues about which they vote. Most recently, many supposedly Catholic politicians have rebuked the Church’s guidance in regards to certain moral questions, claiming that they are absolutely autonomous from the Church. Many, in response to steps taken by the Church, including the CDF’s note on Catholics in political life, have accused the Church of “tell[ing] American politicians what to do” (John Kerry, Time, March 21, 2004).
Catholic politicians who openly repudiate Church teaching (hereafter referred to as Catholic politicians unless otherwise noted) pose a multifaceted threat to themselves, to the faithful and to humanity in general. These politicians are faced with an instant problem if they are being honest about the “personally opposed” bit: they are, at least on some level, violating their conscience. To vote against one’s conscience is almost unthinkable, for the Angelic Doctor states that “Consequently if it be proposed by the reason as something evil, the will tends to it as to something evil: not as if it were evil in itself, but because it is evil accidentally, through the apprehension of the reason” (ST I-II, 19, 5). In that passage, Thomas goes so far as to state that if ones conscience tells them to deny Christ, then that is what they should do. So, even when conscience errs, it still binds (ST I-I 79, 13). One cannot vote against one’s conscience. Therefore, unless the Catholic politicians have somehow managed to disorder themselves to such an extent that they simultaneously hold contradictory positions, they either have a completely subjective view of right and wrong, or they aren’t being honest about their own conscience. Whatever the case may be, and it may vary from politician to politician, it is fairly clear that they are in a truly mangled state, suffering from akrasia, that, a split will, or worse, a truly malformed conscience. By voting the way that they all too often do, by supporting the initiatives that they do, Catholic politicians consistently violate the natural law which is indelibly written upon their hearts. Each time they vote against the natural law, they mangle their souls even more. In such cases, it is almost irresponsible for the Church to do nothing, to carry on as if nothing was wrong, while these politicians consistently do violence to themselves. It is as if Augustine’s warning regarding the unbaptized, “Let him be, let him do it; he is not yet baptized,” and turned it into “Let him be, let him vote for that; he is not yet out of office” (Confessions, 14). Obviously, the consciences of Catholic politicians are not well formed at all. The Church, in such cases, should not refrain to offer instruction and guidance to the politicians so that their consciences may be reformed. It would indeed be a rather cruel act to leave the ill formed conscience ill formed. But, noting the position and prominence of Catholic politicians, the responsibility to correct them in their errors extends beyond the sake of the politician’s soul.
The actions of a Catholic politician will reflect upon the Church as long as the politician identifies himself as a Catholic. Though while there may be a distinction drawn between their legislative activity and the Church, this is not always enough. Gaudium et Spes calls for “a proper view… of the relation between the political community and the Church... [so that] the faithful will be able to make a clear distinction between what a Christian conscience leads them to do in their own name as citizens, whether as individuals or in association, and what they do in the name of the Church and in union with her shepherds” (GS, 76). This statement would be sufficient if the politicians in question were acting according to a Christian conscience formed by the Church, but by all visible accounts, they are not being led by a Christian conscience. Yet, they are still viewed as part of the Church. Many non-Catholics look upon these politicians as being examples of Catholic men and women. The inference then drawn is that while Catholics pay lip-service to high Christian moral ideals, they don’t really care about any of it. Another message sent, this time mostly to Catholics not firmly founded in their faith, is that to be a Catholic, you don’t have to follow what the Church teaches at all. While it is a sad reality, Catholic politicians are visible figures, and as such, they represent the Church and are looked upon as examples. The deafening silence of many priests and bishops, a silence that is finally beginning to be broken, lends credence to the view that the actions taken by these legislators are perfectly acceptable to the Church. The silence, the lack of criticism has been seen as a tacit acceptance and approval. When one sees these Catholics who are politicians, and they hear the silence of the clergy, how can they not but ask: “What’s wrong with your Church? I thought that [these values, these principles] meant something to you” (Sheen, Renewal and Reconciliation, Disc 1, track 4).
In addition to misguiding the faithful and those outside of the Church, the actions of these Catholic politicians deeply impacts society itself. Catholic politicians who speak of and treat abortion as if it were something “we need… to be proud of…” (Kerry to NARAL, Jan 21, 2003). Had certain Catholic politicians not been so enthusiastic to support abortion, the status of legalized abortion in America might be radically different today. 150 members of the Senate and House of Representatives are Catholics, and among these, 70 support abortion. The impact of 70 votes between the two houses is significant, at least enough to have overridden President Clinton’s veto of the ban on partial-birth abortion. The pro-abortion Catholic politicians in the senate also constituted enough of a number to have bypassed the attempts to block judicial appointments of pro-life nominees, including Catholics. The damage wrought by Catholic politicians is not limited to Congress, since a few months ago, the Catholic governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, vetoed a partial-birth abortion ban. These politicians have aided the pro-abortion immensely, perpetuating the struggle for the protection of life in which millions have been killed. And though abortion is the gravest and most serious mark against them, the societal impact of Catholic Politicians is not limited to abortion, for it has recently extended in many cases to embrace homosexuality and homosexual “marriages.” The number of initiatives and projects that they have supported which fly in the face of the teaching of the Church is significant, and the given list will suffice for now.
Catholic politicians who openly go against the teaching of the Church are not so much of a threat to the Church as they are a threat to society in general, for while these politicians can create serious headaches for the Church, for while they can lay and prepare the groundwork for the destruction of society, they cannot destroy the Church. The state, in modern society, is not the type of state described in Rerum Novarum when it was written that “the State as rightly understood; that is to say, any government conformable in its institutions to right reason and natural law and to those dictates of divine wisdom…” (RN, 25). A government which not only permits but encourages abortion has failed to conform to right reason or the natural law. It should be the aim of both the Church and Catholic politicians to repair the damage done to the state by modernism and post-modernism and return it to its proper role and shape. So, it should be the aim of any truly Catholic politician to bring the state into line with the definition accorded to it by Rerum Novarum, for they know what a properly formed state should be, and by not working to achieve that, they are doing a disservice to their constituents. But, sadly, for the majority of such politicians, the aim of serving the constituents has become lost in winning reelection.
Many of the objections regarding the correction of Catholic politicians by the Church revolve around the issue of the separation of Church and State. However, this clause, properly constructed, refers to the freedom of the Church from intrusion by the State. It does not at all refer to the freedom of the State from the Church. Leo XIII declared that “Every minister of holy religion must throw into the conflict all the energy of his mind, and the strength of his endurance; with your authority, venerable brethren, and your example, they must never cease to urge upon all men of every class, upon the high as well as the lowly, the Gospel doctrines of Christian life” (RN, Conclusion). Pius XI further declared that “she can in no wise renounce the duty God entrusted to her to interpose her authority, not of course in matters of technique for which she is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office, but in all things that are connected with the moral law” (QA 41, Vatican translation). The Church is the repository of truth; she holds the truth of humanity. It is by no means a violation of the separation of Church and State, nor is it a violation of the principle of subsidiarity when the Church corrects Catholic politicians who are doing a severe disservice to their own soul and to the state.
If the principles of the Church are true, if there actually is a God and a natural law, then the idea of proceeding as if God did not exist and there was no natural law is baffling, especially when those who proceed in such a manner claim to sincerely believe that God exists. If this is reality, if God does exist, then why proceed as if He didn’t exist? What good could possibly come of it? Laws would not be created upon the notion that attack squads of monkeys roam the streets. Positive laws are supposed to reflect reality, not deny it. Abortion, the legal promotion of homosexual activity, and government support of fornication are all contrary to reality and to human nature. Catholic politicians, by claiming to be Catholic, claim to hold these world views. People hold views of reality because they believe them to be true. To act in legislature contrary to one’s view of reality out of some false view of compassion for others with different views of reality is terribly mistaken. Gaudium et Spes stated that: “They are mistaken who… imagine they can plunge themselves into earthly affairs in such a way as to imply that these are altogether divorced from the religious life. This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age” (GS 43, Vatican translation). Thus, the claim that is made about personal belief does not stand up to scrutiny.
It is also mistaken to abandon one’s own views, as these Catholic politicians claim to do, “for the views of the constituents.” Representatives and Senators are not proxy voting machines – such machines would be much cheaper. Representatives and Senators are elected, rather, because of their world view and their stances. Most Catholic politicians were elected on the basis that they would support abortion. There was no grand cry from the constituency which so moved their hearts to support abortion. Another possible explanation or view, that since they ran on a pro-abortion stance and were elected as such that that means that everyone wants to have an abortion, is not correct. Pro-life democrats are often coerced into voting for pro abortion democrats and other voters could have been misled by the common rhetoric against being a “one issue voter.” Therefore, the claim about following the wishes and will of the constituents is also not a valid claim to make.
On the excuse made regarding imposition of morality, the position that many Catholic politicians hold comes from a skewed notion of morality. To rephrase their oft spoken statement, so that it corresponds with a more proper notion of morality, they are essentially saying “I’m not going to impose that which is necessary for a happy life and for human flourishing upon others.” If legislators will not write into law that which they know to be good and proper to humanity, then their purpose is vague at best. The regulation of human activity cannot have as itself the end at which it aims. The reason human activity in society is regulated is, or at least should be, to achieve some higher purpose. Otherwise, the regulation of society would be to avoid social disturbance, that is, a regulated society, since regulated societies don’t breed social disturbances. Once the regulation of society has as its end only a regulated society, then the state devolves into a police state.
Finally, regarding the claim made for a separation of Church and State, it has been shown that in the Catholic Social Teaching there is legitimate room for the Church to correct and even guide the state. The issues upon which the Church would impose her will upon Catholic politicians would only be the non-negotiable, clear cut matters of absolute right and wrong. There are many possible ways to go about health care, but there is only one way to go about abortion and homosexual marriage. The Church does not wish to seek control of the State; she merely wishes that the State would abide by the natural law for its own sake and for the sake of those living under its jurisdiction.
The Church’s social teaching clearly shows what which is good for humanity and suggests methods in achieving the good. It also sets out methods that should not be used in the matters of the state. In these teachings and other teachings she has put out, she has clearly shown practices that cannot go on in a well-formed state, practices which are detrimental to humanity. Catholic politicians claim to agree with these teachings, yet they go against these teachings as often as is possible. When the Church attempts to guide them in such matters, they cry that they are being oppressed. It is not oppression, it is charitable guidance. Specific methods of correction and ways to bring these politicians into line fall under the jurisdiction of the bishops. But, hopefully the time will come when such politicians will either become truly Catholic or they’ll find some other church.

© Dave Sailer, 2004

Edited July 2, 2004 by BurkeFan

[curtins]

^thats really long and I didnt read it

the Church and the Pope are infalible according to my religion book

[Philippe]

ya... i didnt wanna read all that but... to be forgiven completely for our sins we dont need to make public announcments. In Gods eyes a politician is the same as any other congregational member. We do say an act of contrition that does say we ammend our sins BUT how do u know that he just had confession and had a change of heart without having the time to make changes. We dont know and we shouldnt stop them from recieving the Eucharist because there is no sin for giving the Eucharist to a person in a state of grave sin BUT there is a sin for recieving the Eucharist in an unclean body. That would be the politicians problem, not the Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Communion or the Priest's decision

- Philippe

[cmotherofpirl]

Someone who publically disagrees with the Church and votes to promote the death of babies should not recieve Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

[Aloysius]

the Bible says leaders will be held to a higher standard

pAx

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='lifeteener' date='Jul 1 2004, 07:24 PM'] ya... i didnt wanna read all that but... to be forgiven completely for our sins we dont need to make public announcments. In Gods eyes a politician is the same as any other congregational member. We do say an act of contrition that does say we ammend our sins BUT how do u know that he just had confession and had a change of heart without having the time to make changes. We dont know and we shouldnt stop them from recieving the Eucharist because there is no sin for giving the Eucharist to a person in a state of grave sin BUT there is a sin for recieving the Eucharist in an unclean body. That would be the politicians problem, not the Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Communion or the Priest's decision

- Philippe [/quote]
Sorry for the length... it should be rather informative if you just skim it even, I hope...

The public renouncement of their support for the slaughter of children was a condition set upon them by a few bishops, including Bishop Burke, among others.

A main point I made was that priests and bishops have a responsibility for pastoral care of the politicians souls. If they know that the person is in a serious state of sin, and they give that person communion, they are participating in sacrilige and failing in their roles. So, if you know that the person is in a state of grave sin, and you give them communion, that is a sin. (I can look it up if you don't believe me)

In Christ,
Dave

[Philippe]

i believe u but i just think that there is no definite way of knowing if they are in a state of grace

[Iacobus]

BurkeFan, that was really long. I read the 1st few paragraphs and will read the rest (I am printing it out I have a hard time reading long thing on computer screens it bugs my eyes after a while).

But what I am saying is if Mr. Kerry (who most of us have come to mind) was to go to confession on Saturday after changing his mind about abortion and confessing that he was in err about abortion, would he not be forgiven? This is assuming he intends to mend his ways in the future. Than what prevents him from reciving communion at Mass following that confession. Even if he doesn't make a public press conference right after confession he is still forgiven. He is still in a state of grace. Than a priest denying him communion at that Mass (by choice or order of Bishop) is erring by denying a person who fits teh certia to recivie communion communion. I see something wrong with that. I am not saying it is likly to happen but it is possible and that worries me greatly.

Dave, I said if they show themselves to be unfit for communion than to deny it. But in most cases you have no real way to know that.

[BurkeFan]

Indeed, were John Kerry to make a full and good confession and firmly intend, with the help of God, to mend his ways, then there would be no obstacles to communion in one sense, but until his has publicly stated that he would change his ways, there is still the obstacle of public scandal. Though in most cases this wouldn't be a factor, in the case of Catholic politicians, when one sees them recieve communion, the message delivered, I think, is that one can unabashedly support abortion and still be in perfect communion with the Church.
But, I agree with those who would tend to err on the side of caution, saying that it's pretty certain that this person is in a grave state of sin, and so, for their sake and the sake of their soul, it would be better to deny them communion. I think that not doing that is to allow someone to do serious harm to themselves, something I cannot condone.
In Christ,
Dave

[Iacobus]

I am thinking, if I were a priest (Which I am not), and Kerry came to me for Communion (which seeing as I am not a priest isn't going to happen) I would give it to human trusting in his judgement. Unless he was wearing a "sign" that told me he was not in a state of grace. But that is just me. Wrong or right I don't know but seeing as this is a hypotheicatal situation it doesn't matter much right now.

And I have always thought of Confession between you and God with the priest as an indeamteite. I didn't think I needed to proclaim to the world, which knew that I did this sin or that sin, that I went to Confession and repented. But I am not a pulbic figure like Kerry is. Nonetheless, it doesn't really change much, the Gospel is filled with flip flops of social status.