Vatican: Catholics Who Back Abortion Shouldn't Take Communion


#1

Vatican: Catholics Who Back Abortion Shouldn’t Take Communion [right]http://www.lifenews.com/envelope2.jpg Email this article
http://www.lifenews.com/print2.gif Printer friendly page[/right]
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 7, 2005

**Vatican City (LifeNews.com) – **The Catholic Church has produced a new document for bishops across the world to examine that says Catholics who support legalized abortion should refrain from taking communion because they are out of step with church teachings. http://www.lifenews.com/piccommunion5.jpgThe Vatican said pro-abortion Catholics are not taking their faith seriously and those who take communion and support abortion are behaving in a scandalous manner.

“Some receive communion while denying the teachings of the Church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal,” the document says.

The draft also hearkens back to the 2004 presidential elections, which included a national debate about whether it is appropriate for Catholics to support elected officials or political candidates who favor legal abortion.

“Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace,” the document reads.

The 88 page document is intended for Catholic bishops to examine in October and it contends that, because of abortion and other concerns such as rampant divorce, that Catholics have destroyed the sacrosanct nature of communion.

A document approved by the U.S. Catholic bishops last summer that calls on Catholic colleges and universities not to give a platform to elected officials who back abortion.
“Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles,” the bishops said. “They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

The statement, which also calls on pro-abortion Catholics to refrain on their own from taking communion, was adopted by a vote of 183-6 last summer.


#2

:thumbsup: Another great thing. It is time we start cracking down on this stuff.


#3

That’s great. Now we just gotta see if it’ll make a difference here in the States.


#4

This effectively negates the argument I hear so often about legalizing abortion but being opposed to it. By the way, what is the name of this document? I’d love to actually see the document and not just take Life News’s word on the whole thing. Plus you can’t cite a document if you don’t know its name.


#5

The Church has pussyfooted around with this long enough.

What I don’t understand is why we don’t ask all faithful to give their voting proxies to the Church, so that we can all vote as a bloc. If that is too difficult, then we should quit the hints and innuendos, and just tell our congregations straight up, “if you vote for X candidate, then please do not present yourself for Communion.”

Alan


#6

[quote=estesbob]****
“Some receive communion while denying the teachings of the Church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal,” the document says.

Others receive Communion while standing in personal judgment of others, and with unresolved conflicts with their brothers.

The draft also hearkens back to the 2004 presidential elections, which included a national debate about whether it is appropriate for Catholics to support elected officials or political candidates who favor legal abortion.

Except too many priests and bishops supported Kerry so they really didn’t get serious about it.

Oops, I forgot. It’s not about the leaders, it’s about the bad sheep. Baa-aad sheep.

The 88 page document is intended for Catholic bishops to examine in October and it contends that, because of abortion and other concerns such as rampant divorce, that Catholics have destroyed the sacrosanct nature of communion.

Blasphemy. The nature of Communion cannot be damaged by such trivia. Now let’s just glue the ear back on like Christ would, find a shot of faith, and quit giving sin credit for being able to trump the Church. Christ has conquered the world once; we really don’t need to protect Him from someone with improper political views.

The person who uses political votes to judge another’s readiness for Communion pays God lip service while disobeying Him. We are the pharisees, who would judge the woman who is washing Christ’s feet with her tears.

We would say to Christ in the Eucharist, “the next woman in line is a sinner; Lord, please do not disgrace yourself to be any part of her.”

Judge not based on surface measures. That’s something the Church could stand to write a few missives on. We’re too busy chasing each other out of the Church. If the Church acted this way during the Reformation, I can’t say that I blame the sheep for having listened to a different voice.

A document approved by the U.S. Catholic bishops last summer that calls on Catholic colleges and universities not to give a platform to elected officials who back abortion.
“Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles,” the bishops said. “They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

That sounds like a prudent move. :thumbsup:

The statement, which also calls on pro-abortion Catholics to refrain on their own from taking communion, was adopted by a vote of 183-6 last summer.

[/quote]

People will vote Democratic, and then take Communion unless you stop them. At the beginning of each Mass, it should be made clear that if you voted for any pro-choice candidate, then you ARE NOT to take Communion, period.

Let’s quit wussying around with this, “faithful catholics ought to consider…” whatever it is stuff. Let’s just lay it flat out. Each election the Church has a sample ballot displayed, with certain candidates marked as sinful. Any Catholic who votes for any of these is out, period. Each person in line for Communion will make a quick affirmation to the usher of compliance with the Voting Rules, or will be escorted away from line.

Alan


#7

I would like to see the actual document also. I would love to have a document straight from the Vatican to show a “so-called Catholic” friend of mine who is pro-choice and doesn’t see anything wrong with continuing to receive communion. Personally, I’m not sure how anyone could view this as acceptable. :tsktsk:


#8

I think that there is a clear difference between voting for a candidate because he/she is pro-abortion and voting for someone for other valid reasons who also happens to be pro-abortion. Most of the time I feel like it is a choice between two bad options.

I notice there was not a similarly broad pronouncement condemning people who vote for someone who is pro-death penalty in the U.S. when the Holy Father told us that we should not have to resort to such means in our country. I hear supposedly faithful, “pro-life” Catholics spouting pro-death penalty nonsense all of the time here in Texas. I believe that pro-life means from natural conception to natural death. Therefore, in the last Presidential election we had no good pro-life candidate because one would allow babies to die and one just wants to let them live a bit longer before taking their lives.

I used to be pro-choice (not projecting my beliefs on others) and pro-death penalty (why pay for prisoners with my taxes) before God revealed His truth to me in the catechism as I studied searching for His true church. I realized that by killing so many people, especially the young and mentally challenged, we may be stealing their chance to repent and become saints. (Mind you I think they can have that opportunity on 24-hour lock down in a heavily guarded maximum security prison with nothing in the way of luxuries.)


#9

The Cathecism of our Church and 2000 years of Church teachings allow for the death penalty(which I oppose, BTW, for the same reasons you do). Capital punishment accounts for about 200 deaths a year-abortion 1.2 millon. In light of this to say there was no good po-life canidate for President is nonsnese.

BTW-as a fellow Texan you know that the Governor does not have the power to ommute a death sentence.


#10

[quote=AlanFromWichita]People will vote Democratic, and then take Communion unless you stop them. At the beginning of each Mass, it should be made clear that if you voted for any pro-choice candidate, then you ARE NOT to take Communion, period.

Let’s quit wussying around with this, “faithful catholics ought to consider…” whatever it is stuff. Let’s just lay it flat out. Each election the Church has a sample ballot displayed, with certain candidates marked as sinful. Any Catholic who votes for any of these is out, period. Each person in line for Communion will make a quick affirmation to the usher of compliance with the Voting Rules, or will be escorted away from line.

Alan
[/quote]

Well thats quite a straw man you knocked down there. Nothing in he story talked about sanctions on those who vote for a pro-abortion candidate. However Church teaching has been very clear that a public official cant publicly support abortion and call themselves a Catholic. I really dont care if Kerry, Kennedy, Cumo, et al go to communion or not. that is betwee them an the Lord. BUT they insult and degrade practicing catholics when they claim what they are doing is OK. Its not.


#11

[quote=estesbob]Well thats quite a straw man you knocked down there. Nothing in he story talked about sanctions on those who vote for a pro-abortion candidate. However Church teaching has been very clear that a public official cant publicly support abortion and call themselves a Catholic.

[/quote]

Read it again. It does say that it is sinful to “support” bad candidates, which includes voting for them.

Other documents and missives from different bishops have been very clear that voting for an ostensibly pro-choice candidate when there is a choice is reason to refrain from Holy Communion.

[quote=the article]“Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace,” the document reads.
[/quote]

So it isn’t just that there are bad candidates; we are bad Catholics if we vote for them.

I really dont care if Kerry, Kennedy, Cumo, et al go to communion or not. that is betwee them an the Lord. BUT they insult and degrade practicing catholics when they claim what they are doing is OK. Its not.

You may not care, but the Church doesn’t seem to have a problem with discussing her judgment of these men publicly in the arena of Catholics and non-Catholics alike, as participants in the political process.

Alan


#12

People will vote Democratic, and then take Communion unless you stop them. At the beginning of each Mass, it should be made clear that if you voted for any pro-choice candidate, then you ARE NOT to take Communion, period.

Why not add artificial birth control to the list?

People will use artificial birth control, and then take Communion unless you stop them. At the beginning of each Mass, it should be made clear that if you use any form of contraception not sanctioned by the Church, then you ARE NOT to take Communion, period.


I think the Catholics who use birth control would far out number the Catholics who vote Democrat.


#13

Why not just hang a sign out front that says, “Democrats Not Welcome!”?


#14

[quote=AlanFromWichita]Others receive Communion while standing in personal judgment of others, and with unresolved conflicts with their brothers.

Except too many priests and bishops supported Kerry so they really didn’t get serious about it.

Oops, I forgot. It’s not about the leaders, it’s about the bad sheep. Baa-aad sheep.

[/quote]

Are you really surprised by the Church’s stance on this? Pah-lease! The Church has been nothing if not consistant on issues of life from conception to natural death.

Do you remember the story in the bible about the loose woman who washed the Lord’s feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. Jesus did not say, “don’t worry about, I know you have a heart of gold…” Jesus very lovingly told her, “Go, your sins are forgiven. SIN NO MORE.”

Blasphemy. The nature of Communion cannot be damaged by such trivia.

Did anyone tell you the story of Pharoah killing all the boy babies so he could kill the one promised to deliver the people of God. Or how about King Saul chasing David in the deserts? Ever hear of the passion of Christ, the Son of God? How about ebay trying to sell consecrated hosts? Human history is repleat with examples of man treating the sacred with less than the respect that the sacred deserves.

we really don’t need to protect Him from someone with improper political views.

  1. It’s not about Jesus needing our protection, it’s about us needing to be moral people who would protect the sacred if it was within our power.

  2. We are not protecting the sacred from “improper political views” but from someone who cares so little about the sacred, that life itself does not have meaning and does not merit protection.

The person who uses political votes to judge another’s readiness for Communion pays God lip service while disobeying Him. We are the pharisees, who would judge the woman who is washing Christ’s feet with her tears.

We would say to Christ in the Eucharist, “the next woman in line is a sinner; Lord, please do not disgrace yourself to be any part of her.”

Judge not based on surface measures. That’s something the Church could stand to write a few missives on. We’re too busy chasing each other out of the Church. If the Church acted this way during the Reformation, I can’t say that I blame the sheep for having listened to a different voice.

That sounds like a prudent move.

If the human conscience was strong enough to withstand the internal forces that lead us to sin, Christ would have said, “Follow your own conscience.” Instead, Christ told Peter, “Whose sins you have bound on earth are bound in heaven.” Inspite sending the Holy Spirit to the entire Church, Christ knew that the faithful would need an external structure to keep the faithful honest. (Peskey freewill)

If you want to delude yourself by believing that it’s ok to believe one way and pass laws that permit the murder of untold thousands, you have been given free will like everybody else and you are free to worship as you choose. The Churches job, the mandate She recieved from Christ, was to be true to Him and deliver the fullness of Revelation in tact. Christ said, “Many will try but few will enter.”

People will vote Democratic, and then take Communion unless you stop them. At the beginning of each Mass, it should be made clear that if you voted for any pro-choice candidate, then you ARE NOT to take Communion, period.

Let’s quit wussying around with this, “faithful catholics ought to consider…” whatever it is stuff. Let’s just lay it flat out. Each election the Church has a sample ballot displayed, with certain candidates marked as sinful. Any Catholic who votes for any of these is out, period. Each person in line for Communion will make a quick affirmation to the usher of compliance with the Voting Rules, or will be escorted away from line.

Alan

The Church can not take away the vote (again, that free will thing) nor can She canvass the faithful to see who votes what. But there is a very big difference between an individual voting democratic and a politician like Kerry who clearly voted for the murder of unborn children without parental notification, or Ted Kennedy who has purposely filibustered against Catholic-latino judicial appointees lest they fail to uphold a woman’s right to kill an unborn child. Kerry and just about every political Kennedy are not only guilty of supporting abortion, but of the more serious offence of scandal. They confuse the faithful and the community and for that reason, these and politicos like them need to be excluded from the Lord’s table.

Even Judas consealed his sin even after Christ told him to do what he had to do.


#15

Maybe each parish could establish a Credentials Committee that could set up a little table at the head of the Communion line to question each potential recipient.


#16

[quote=Antigen]Are you really surprised by the Church’s stance on this? Pah-lease! The Church has been nothing if not consistant on issues of life from conception to natural death.

[/quote]

She has also consistently whined about people leaving the Church ever since the Reformation. Then she blames the sheep. Then she says, “well, we don’t want them anyway because their sin is worse than any of ours. Get them out of the house before those wretched sinners track mud on the carpet.”

Which is it? Does she want to pare down membership to those with a certain “saintly index” or “saintly propensity” or “calculated potential?” How is that not akin to abortion, albeit in the spiritual realm. I did not ask to become a Catholic, frankly, and right now I’m working at being a good one. Meanwhile if you growl at me and tell me I’m not worthy to sit at the table because I Don’t Think Exactly Like You, then you’re the one with a problem, not me. His Holiness can make it official by telling me I’m not a “good” Catholic and you know how much that makes me want to drop my defenses and let this man’s word be as if God himself were speaking to me? Zip.

When I hear someone say “baaaaad sheep,” it just doesn’t sound like my master’s voice. My master calls me a friend, not a slave.

I tell a dog it is “good” or “bad” based on its behavior, because that’s how you train a dog. I never tell my children they are “good” or “bad” because they resist me or make mistakes. That means their value to me is based on their current behavior. I might say, “I’m angry with you for doing that,” but I never say, “Andrew, you are a bad boy for doing that.” I will not prophesy that my children are anything but good and precious gifts from God no matter how they misbehave.

Do you remember the story in the bible about the loose woman who washed the Lord’s feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. Jesus did not say, “don’t worry about, I know you have a heart of gold…” Jesus very lovingly told her, “Go, your sins are forgiven. SIN NO MORE.”

What bible version are you using? I think you’re using an example that’s supposed to support my side, not yours. I just checked and neither the NAB or the Douay-Rheims mentions anything about Christ admonishing her. I guess you have convinced me that there is nothing that says that You Must Admonish The Sinner In All Cases, or do we just assume that Jesus must have said it because we know He wanted to?

Here’s what Christ actually said, in the Douay-Rheims version:

48, 50: And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee. And he said to the woman: Thy faith hath made thee safe, go in peace.

NAB version:
48, 50: He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” But he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Thank you for the supporting reference.

Did anyone tell you the story of Pharoah killing all the boy babies so he could kill the one promised to deliver the people of God. Or how about King Saul chasing David in the deserts? Ever hear of the passion of Christ, the Son of God? How about ebay trying to sell consecrated hosts? Human history is repleat with examples of man treating the sacred with less than the respect that the sacred deserves.

Whatever. By now you’d think you’d get used to it and not live your life in anxiety. Have perfect peace through the storms. God’s not incapable of using imperfect people in your life to minister to some of your needs, or to test you in your faith. If these tests get you upset and anxious, then you need to learn how to stay calm and surrender to the fact that you do not have control over everybody else’s mind.

  1. It’s not about Jesus needing our protection, it’s about us needing to be moral people who would protect the sacred if it was within our power.

Yes, just like they would keep the lowly children away from Christ, or tell Christ he should let the woman touch Him, or murmur that he dines with sinners and tax collectors, or cut off the ear. These things were all done with good intent to preserve the sacred, but Christ said they were all in error. Now that Christ isn’t here anymore to correct us, we go back to protecting Him from any contact with certain types of sinners.

  1. We are not protecting the sacred from “improper political views” but from someone who cares so little about the sacred, that life itself does not have meaning and does not merit protection.

You are protecting Christ from having to touch a sinner. A leper, as it were, since we cafe Catholics are so horrible we should be quarantined and not even be seen in the Catholic Church without a self-disclosure dunce cap with “CINO” prominently lettered, in case someone comes in and make the ghastly mistake that your being in the same church means you are personally responsible for this man’s shortcomings and think it’s OK that you have to share a table with him.

Alan


#17

I think that some pro-choice Catholics are just ignorant to the facts. It is the duty of the Church to lead them in the right direction and it is up to the individual to follow with proper moral bearings. The full page add on the five non-negotiables during last years election is a good example. The CCC has sold over 8 million copies which is great, but it’s probably 800 million to few. Maybe the church needs to fight fire
(media/advertising) with fire (moral teachings).


#18

[quote=patientone]I think that some pro-choice Catholics are just ignorant to the facts. It is the duty of the Church to lead them in the right direction and it is up to the individual to follow with proper moral bearings. The full page add on the five non-negotiables during last years election is a good example. The CCC has sold over 8 million copies which is great, but it’s probably 800 million to few. Maybe the church needs to fight fire
(media/advertising) with fire (moral teachings).
[/quote]

It seems to me that any Catholic who doesn’t yet know that the Church is steadfastly against abortion, is probably not batting on all cylinders anyway – or has been out of Church and media contact for some reason. That is, if abortion is so clearly and unilaterally denounced by churches elsewhere like it is around here. Of course, maybe we hear about abortions more than some because we have Tiller the Killer right here in Wichita, specializing in elective late term abortions. Magdalene Church had to move for the expressway, but Tiller’s office across the street did not. Guess which of the two contributed more to liberal republican candidates and the democratic governor?

Alan


#19

I completely disagree with abortions in all cases. However there have been occassions when i have heard stories about rape and other terrible ways that a person or particulalry young girl has become pregnant, and my mind odes wander. What alternative do people have sometimes. Each case is unique and it must be very hard in some instances o find an alternative to abortion.

:hmmm:


#20

[quote=Sebaldus]Why not just hang a sign out front that says, “Democrats Not Welcome!”?
[/quote]

Right next to the sign the Democrat party has placed in front of the Supreme Court “Practicing Catholics not welcom”


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.