socalscout Posted August 10, 2004 Author Share Posted August 10, 2004 (edited) [quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 9 2004, 07:11 PM'] 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). [/quote] I agree but if he is contrite which means he will not vote again then absolution should be granted right? What if there were no more issues on abortion to vote otherwise? Lets say the damage is done what then should the priest do if Kerry is contrite? Lets say he is absolved by his Confessor, does he then have to say that he renounces his sin publically to receive Communion? Here is another question. What if he renounces his sin publically but does not go to Confession. How does a Priest or Extra Ordinary Minsiter know that? Ironmonk answered the question on public announcement but what if he is not required by his confessor to do that? What if he is absolved and privateley reinstated into the Church? How does a Priest or Extra Ordinary Minster know that without knowing the Confession? A Priest or Bishop would be breaking the secrecy of Confession if he told the public that Kerry is absolved right? Edited August 10, 2004 by socalscout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 EMHCs can't deny Holy Communion. The Priest won't necessarily know, it would be up to the communicant to inform him. He only has to say that he's against abortion and say that he'll stop voting for it. The Priest should tell him, but it's stated by the Church, so it would be the person who's making the Confession's job to find out and do it either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 [quote name='socalscout' date='Aug 9 2004, 08:04 PM']Answered! Thanks Ash, qfnol31 and Ironmonk. Like I said I wanted to be wrong but I am one of those "Prove it" people.[/quote] I know what you're saying. I have a friend that is like that, too. :read: Thanks everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellenita Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 This is an interesting debate! The bishops in England are reported in the press to be divided as to whether they would deny communion to politicians - some have apparently said they don't think the Eucharist should be used as a political issue.... ....of course, this may be 'mis-reporting' - I'm very cynical that the press ever faithfully reports anything these days! Has there been agreement among the bishops in the US over the issue with Kerry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 [quote name='Ellenita' date='Aug 10 2004, 08:36 AM'] This is an interesting debate! The bishops in England are reported in the press to be divided as to whether they would deny communion to politicians - some have apparently said they don't think the Eucharist should be used as a political issue.... ....of course, this may be 'mis-reporting' - I'm very cynical that the press ever faithfully reports anything these days! Has there been agreement among the bishops in the US over the issue with Kerry? [/quote] There are a few bad bishops in the world that seem to forget what the Church teaches and seem to have their own foolish reasoning. A bishop that goes against the Church is truely a sad thing. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Pro-Choice = No Communion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socalscout Posted August 10, 2004 Author Share Posted August 10, 2004 [quote name='Ellenita' date='Aug 10 2004, 05:36 AM'] This is an interesting debate! The bishops in England are reported in the press to be divided as to whether they would deny communion to politicians - some have apparently said they don't think the Eucharist should be used as a political issue.... ....of course, this may be 'mis-reporting' - I'm very cynical that the press ever faithfully reports anything these days! Has there been agreement among the bishops in the US over the issue with Kerry? [/quote] The stance I am taking is not that they should receive Communion stained with that sin but that how do we know if they are not reconciled to the Church if the means is the secrecy of Confession. Assuming they stop voting the way they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 [quote name='Ellenita' date='Aug 10 2004, 06:36 AM'] This is an interesting debate! The bishops in England are reported in the press to be divided as to whether they would deny communion to politicians - some have apparently said they don't think the Eucharist should be used as a political issue.... ....of course, this may be 'mis-reporting' - I'm very cynical that the press ever faithfully reports anything these days! Has there been agreement among the bishops in the US over the issue with Kerry? [/quote] Unfortunately not. It's the same situation here as it is in the U.K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 [quote name='socalscout' date='Aug 10 2004, 12:09 PM'] The stance I am taking is not that they should receive Communion stained with that sin but that how do we know if they are not reconciled to the Church if the means is the secrecy of Confession. Assuming they stop voting the way they do. [/quote] I think we are discussing what would be the [b]correct[/b] thing to be done in the situation. Unfortunately in reality, that is not the way it is handled. Unless the politician is totally and completely ignorant that he has to go to confession before receiving communion, even if he changed his position on abortion, he's committing grave sin and bringing judgement on himself by taking Eucharist without going to confession first. Here's a question for you smarties: If someone is to be denied communion, wouldn't it be the bishop's responsibility to state to priests that the politician is to be denied communion in the first place? My guess is that is why a lot of priests do NOT deny communion to pro-choice politicians, because they are wary of "stirring up the pot" or doing it without the bishop's authority, if you will. Ideally the pentitent would be publicly deemed unfit in the first place by the bishop(s). The confessor would have the pentitent make public reparation, and contact his bishop to make public notice to other bishops that he is back in communion with the church (given that he was publicly in opposition and stated by the bishops to be so in the first place.) The bishop is not publicly stating "He confessed it in confession," but what is publicly made known is that he is back in communion with the church and permitted to receive communion. I would think this would be IDEALLY how it's handled. Anyone can correct me if I'm mistaken. Lord, have mercy on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 [quote name='socalscout' date='Aug 9 2004, 07:55 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] The Act of Contrition includes the promise to amend one's life. Not doing this by publicly denouncing those sins which were a cause of scandal is to have gone to Confession in vain without genuine intent. Until the sin is amended, the politician should not receive the Eucharist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted August 11, 2004 Share Posted August 11, 2004 [quote name='socalscout' date='Aug 9 2004, 04:50 PM']Ok let me preface this by saying that I was all for denying Communion for politicians but I gave it some thought and here is a take on it. I would like to be wrong but you will have to prove it. If voting for pro choice is a mortal sin and it is, which I assume incurs latae sententiae excommunication then the only reinstatement is Confession from a confessor who was giving authority by the local ordinary, right?[/quote] Yes, it is a mortal sin to knowingly support either a pro-abortion politician or a program that would legalize this heinous crime. A politician who supports as a "right" the ability to murder an innocent unborn child, is no longer in communion with the Catholic Church, and nor is a voter who would either vote for such a politician or support programs that make it legal to kill the innocent. Now, if a person repents of his error on this topic and goes to confession, he can be restored to communion with the God and the Church. But part of this restoration to full communion involves a purpose of amendment, and so, if the person in question continued to publicly support the "right" to abortion, it follows that he remains in a state of grave sin and would still be ineligible to receive Holy Communion. In fact, if he has confessed his sin, but then persisted openly and publicly in it, he would actually compounded his error, and would increase the gravity of his offense. For in making a false confession, in which he never intended to change his views on this issue in order to conform them to the teaching of the Church, he has committed a further sin of sacrilege. [quote name='socalscout' date='Aug 9 2004, 04:50 PM']Tell me then how does a priest or extraordinary minister know that he(the politician) did not confess and thus be reinstateed without breaking the anonymity of the penitant?[/quote] This is where you are confused, if a pro-abortion politician goes to confession and confesses his sin in having supported the "right" to abortion, he must from that point on, publicly cease from supporting that crime or his confession is clearly invalid. [quote name='socalscout' date='Aug 9 2004, 04:50 PM']See what I mean? If that politician confesses to the proper confessor and the excommunication is lifted then no one would know that except for the confessor and the penitant so how can one deny him Communion without breaking the secrecy of Confession?[/quote] So, if politician "A" supports abortion and then goes to confession and confesses his sin, but then, after having gone to confession, politician "A" continues to support abortion publicly, it follows that politician "A" remains in a state of grave sin and has actually compounded the sin by making a bad confession. Confession must include, sorrow for the sins committed, which includes a true purpose of amendment, auricular confession to a priest, a form of satisfaction (i.e., the act of penance), and the absolution given by the priest. If any of these things is lacking, the sacrament of confession has not be validly celebrated. So, in a case like this, where politician "A" has gone to confession, but has then publicly persisted in his grave sin, the priest or the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, should not give politician "A" the Blessed Sacrament. [quote name='socalscout' date='Aug 9 2004, 04:50 PM']Like I said I would like to be wrong on this.[/quote] I assure you, on this topic you are wrong. God bless, Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted August 11, 2004 Share Posted August 11, 2004 wat if the politician went right before Mass and didnt have time 2 make a public announcment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now