Yuku free message boards

This particular thread does seem to be entirely concerned with American issues. It even quoted dates in US format. would you all bve interested in the discussions in the Mother of Parliaments? Where the Liberal Democrats disagree with the Scottish Nationalists? As for communion, politicians, like everyone else must follow their conscience in voting and taking the sacrament. It is no business of the bishops in a secular state like the US. The RC church is not established like the Anglican Church in England.

Harroldian:

This particular thread was renamed after it was started with the "awful article" posted by Tizzidale and evolved (or degenerated, depending on your point of view) from there. Personally, I am interested in critiques of the Catholic Church that are legitimate or have an air of legitimacy because they are published in respectable forums, wherever those critiques originate. So if there is discussion about the Church in Parliament that fits the bill, feel free to inform us about them.

When it comes to avowedly Roman Catholic politicians who openly support and even advocate positions that directly contradict the teachings of the Magisterium, I disagree that whether they are permitted to receive communion "is no business of the bishops." Bishops are charged with shepherding their flocks and with seeing to their proper catechesis, as described in the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 386 §1. A diocesan bishop, frequently preaching in person, is bound to propose and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith which are to be believed and applied to morals. He is also to take care that the prescripts of the canons on the ministry of the word, especially those on the homily and catechetical instruction, are carefully observed so that the whole Christian doctrine is handed on to all.

§2. Through more suitable means, he is firmly to protect the integrity and unity of the faith to be believed, while nonetheless acknowledging a just freedom in further investigating its truths.

When a well-known "Catholic" person does things in his or her public life that demonstrate a willful opposition to the laws of God and the teachings of the Church, it is the bishop's duty, regardless of what kind of political system exists, to point out that opposition to the faithful so that no one is lead to believe that such opposition is acceptable. If, after the bishop has made reasonable attempts to guide the dissenting public person back to the correct path and that person obstinately persists in his or her dissent, then the bishop is fully within his rights -- indeed he must -- take appropriate steps to prevent the dissenter from imperiling his or her immortal soul and endangering the souls of the gullible or ignorant. The bishop can do so by, among other acts, preventing the public figure from causing the scandal of receiving the Holy Eucharist at communion when it is obvious to all that the person is not "in communion" with the Church.

There are those who claim that they cannot know what people believe when they present themselves for communion and therefore they simply offer the Host to everyone. This is patently nonsensical and a cop out. If on Friday afternoon Nancy Pelosi and Cherie Blair stand in front of the television cameras and announce to the world that they are "pro-choice" and advocate the use of contraceptives, and then they show up in the communion procession at Mass on Saturday afternoon is the priest to assume that in the morning they repented, went to confession and sincerely intend to reform? If the announcement of their dissent were a one-time event then perhaps a priest could in charity make that assumption. But for people with long public records of dissent making that assumption is idiocy. Giving such women communion under those circumstances is simply telling everyone else in the church that it doesn't matter what you believe, you can partake of the sacrament anyway. That is not Catholic teaching. It is a terrible practice. Personally, I find it insulting to the Lord whose body and blood we accept in the Eucharist because in effect such politicians are making a mockery of His teaching.

Harroldian:

Our Lord may have consorted with sinners, but at the Last Supper he distributed His Body and Blood only to his disciples. In fact, it's possible to read the story in such a way that Judas Iscariot had already been told by Jesus to leave before He celebrated the first Eucharistic meal.

Anyway, the point you are making seems to assume that the individual conscience determines one's fitness for participation in the Eucharist. In large part that is so, but it is not wholly correct. My conscience may tell me that it's OK to help myself to large sums of money from the bank because I'm giving it to the poor, but the truth is that I have broken the seventh commandment. If the person distributing communion knows that my conscience is thus deformed and I have been told of this defect, according to Catholic teaching communion should be denied if I "obstinately persist" in my defective belief. While Joseph Ratzinger was still Cardinal and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he wrote an explanatory note to the American bishops on this precise point. (That letter was one of the subjects of my discussion, above, with New Perspective.)
This is the pertinent passage:

4. Apart from an individuals's judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2000], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

You can read the rest of the letter here.

As for your view that politicians may vote to keep abortion lawful and not be pro-choice, that may happen in rare instances, such as occurred in the United States when truly faithful Catholics supported the law which made partial birth abortions illegal even though it did not outlaw all abortions. Such an incremental approach to the ultimate goal of making all killing of the unborn illegal is acceptable. However, I regret to say that when it comes to politicians like Nancy Pelosi or Rudy Giuliani or John Kerry or Ted Kennedy or numerous others, there's little to no doubt that they are "pro-choice." They run on "pro-choice" platforms and announce that even though they might in the privacy of their hearts not be "pro-choice" they will vote "pro-choice." Their every public action speaks loudly and clearly. If they cannot support even one piece of legislation that restricts abortion, what does that tell you?

I must also note that I find it difficult to accept the view that there are those who genuinely oppose abortion but who do not believe that the law is the way to support that belief. Do these people also believe that murder should be taken off the law books and people should merely be "persuaded" not to kill others? Civilization is determined in large part by the laws societies enact. Laws are the reflection of social values. By enshrining the "right to abortion" in the law that tells me a great deal about the value society places on human life, what the society thinks the rights and duties are of men and women, and how it views families. The notion that a woman has the right to destroy incipient life in her womb without interference from anyone, has done more to erode our culture than almost any other misguided concept that arose in the 20th century. We deplore Nazism and communism and tyrants like Pol Pot or Idi Amin and massacres such as occurred in Rwanda and the genocide that is now occurring in Sudan. But these pale in comparison to the number of abortions that are estimated to have taken place in the U.S. since 1973: 48,589,993. Shocking, isn't it?