Communion To Pro-choice Politicians

[qfnol31]

[quote name='socalscout' date='Aug 9 2004, 07:06 PM'] No confessor would require anyone to make a public reconciliation. [/quote]
Reconciliation, no, but reparation, yes. We already know the person's stance, it's not a confession to us, but rather an apology.

[socalscout]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 9 2004, 06:26 PM'] You are required to make reparations to all you have injured. This is a requirement of the Sacrament. How you do it is up to you, but in the case of abortion, public renouncement would be much easier than approaching all of those whom you have offended. [/quote]
I have never been told to go to everyone I have sinned against and make reparations. Where is this part of the Sacrament? Like I said I want to be wrong but you have to prove it.

[Ash Wednesday]

I'm not really sure, someone out there on the boards would be better versed than I would. But it's my understanding that a priest can reserve the right to reserve communion to anyone he suspects is unfit. Wouldn't it be better for a priest to be safe than sorry? Communion is a privilege, not a "right."

I guess I don't see how a public scandal could be repaired "privately." The sin itself can be forgiven privately, but given public damage, I would think that unless the politician wants to be denied communion by mistaken but cautious priests, he would need to inform people that his stance has changed to end the confusion.

[qfnol31]

1424 It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. In a profound sense it is also a "confession" - acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy toward sinful man.
It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest's sacramental absolution God grants the penitent "pardon and peace."6
It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the live of God who reconciles: "Be reconciled to God."7 He who lives by God's merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord's call: [b]"Go; first be reconciled to your brother."8[/b]

1450 "Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, [b]confess with the lips[/b], and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction."

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='socalscout' date='Aug 9 2004, 07:28 PM'] I have never been told to go to everyone I have sinned against and make reparations. [/quote]
Are you a politician?

Have you confessed misleading a large number of people into error and scandal?

I confessed once that I had said some terrible things about someone to friends, and I received absolution and penance, but as reparation I had to redeem her reputation and build it back up among our acquaintances.

[qfnol31]

I have had to do the same towards my parents.

[socalscout]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Aug 9 2004, 06:33 PM'] I'm not really sure, someone out there on the boards would be better versed than I would. But it's my understanding that a priest can reserve the right to reserve communion to anyone he suspects is unfit. Wouldn't it be better for a priest to be safe than sorry? Communion is a privilege, not a "right."

I guess I don't see how a public scandal could be repaired "privately." The sin itself can be forgiven privately, but given public damage, I would think that unless the politician wants to be denied communion by mistaken but cautious priests, he would need to inform people that his stance has changed to end the confusion. [/quote]
I appreciate everything you are saying but it does not fit into what I was taught about the Sacrament. Every sin can be construde against your fellow man but we are not made to make public reparations. Also denying communion to a person who is without Mortal sin "just to be safe" is in itself a sin, I believe.

I don't like the answer to the question I brought up but to me, unless it is stated by the Church, how can they be denied Communion?

[socalscout]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 9 2004, 06:34 PM'] 1424 It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament. In a profound sense it is also a "confession" - acknowledgment and praise - of the holiness of God and of his mercy toward sinful man.
It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest's sacramental absolution God grants the penitent "pardon and peace."6
It is called the sacrament of Reconciliation, because it imparts to the sinner the live of God who reconciles: "Be reconciled to God."7 He who lives by God's merciful love is ready to respond to the Lord's call: [b]"Go; first be reconciled to your brother."8[/b]

1450 "Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, [b]confess with the lips[/b], and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction."

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance." [/quote]
Yes and we are given pennance by our confessor but where does it state we must do it publicaly and by who's criteria? If the Confessor tells him to do 5 Hail Mary's and he does then you are telling me he is not absolved of his sin when he leaves that confessional unless he goes public?

[qfnol31]

Last paragraph:

[quote]Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance." [/quote]

He is not absolved if he doesn't promise to do penance (in the act of Contrition) and follow through on that promise. Up above, it says that he must make amends for the sin, and later calls that penance. Part of making amends for supporting abortion would require a public renunciation.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='socalscout' date='Aug 9 2004, 07:40 PM'] I appreciate everything you are saying but it does not fit into what I was taught about the Sacrament. Every sin can be construde against your fellow man but we are not made to make public reparations. Also denying communion to a person who is without Mortal sin "just to be safe" is in itself a sin, I believe.

I don't like the answer to the question I brought up but to me, unless it is stated by the Church, how can they be denied Communion? [/quote]
How can we "not be made" to make public reparations when we have created public scandal? That doesn't add up at all. If they wish to repair their public standing with the church and remain a public figure, then they will have to resolve the matter PUBLICLY.

And a priest denying communion is not committing sin UNLESS they KNEW the person was not in a state of mortal sin. Otherwise, this is up to the priest's discretion and one should be obedient. Whether they are right or wrong in the matter, the saints in history have practiced obedience with their superiors.

This is apparently a foreign concept to Catholics nowdays.

(off to practice for now, so this is my last post for a while)

[qfnol31]

And Americans. No offense to anyone of course! I'm guilty too.

[socalscout]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Aug 9 2004, 06:49 PM'] How can we "not be made" to make public reparations when we have created public scandal? That doesn't add up at all. If they wish to repair their public standing with the church and remain a public figure, then they will have to resolve the matter PUBLICLY.

And a priest denying communion is not committing sin UNLESS they KNEW the person was not in a state of mortal sin. Otherwise, this is up to the priest's discretion and one should be obedient. Whether they are right or wrong in the matter, the saints in history have practiced obedience with their superiors.

This is apparently a foreign concept to Catholics nowdays.

(off to practice for now, so this is my last post for a while) [/quote]
Well I'm stumped really. I agree with you but I need someone to prove it.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='socalscout' date='Aug 9 2004, 08:55 PM'] That makes sense but like I said you have to prove that to me. Where does it say that?

I want to be wrong. [/quote]
She's correct.


[quote]Canon 915  Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

Who are those who must be refused, that is, "are not to be admitted to Holy Communion"? The moral and canonical tradition of the Church explains it as those who are "publicly unworthy" (1917 Code c. 855, 1), that is, who despite having been warned [b]have not repented [/b]and [b]repaired the public scandal [/b]("obstinately persist") in some public condition of grave sinfulness ("manifest grave sin"). This certainly applies to anyone, and not just politicians, who publicly and unrepentantly promote and advance grave evils, such as abortion, which the Church has formally identified as such.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vote/Catholic_Politicians/Questions1.asp"]http://www.ewtn.com/vote/Catholic_Politicians/Questions1.asp[/url][/quote]




God Bless,
ironmonk

[socalscout]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Aug 9 2004, 06:59 PM'] She's correct.







God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Answered!

Thanks Ash, qfnol31 and Ironmonk. Like I said I wanted to be wrong but I am one of those "Prove it" people.

Edited August 10, 2004 by socalscout

[dUSt]

Also, a priest wouldn't have to absolve Kerry of his sins unless he's made a public announcement stating that he's changed his stance. So therefore, it wouldn't be part of the penance, but it would be a validation that he's truly sorry (a priest should not absolve sins if they know that the sinner is not truly sorry for their sins).