Thread: Priest: Catholics Who Voted For Obama Shouldn't Take Communion

any large constituent can press the government to sway in their favor... do you think the Catholic Bishops are the only ones??? Better think that again, because I am sure that other Religious Orders have done the same.

Does that mean the government will bend to the will? Hard to say -- are Catholic Bishops not US Citizens? Yes they are --

so if you were a Satanist, and there was something you didn't like, and you wanted to persue it changed in the government, shouldn't you have that right as a citizen to do so??

Absolutely!

They are still citizens.

I seriously doubt Roe vs Wade will be reversed -- especially with a Democratic POTUS...but they have the right to persue it, as they have done since Roe vs Wade became law.

not really -- 2 different topics in one thread.

As a Catholic, you are to take Holy Communion free of sin and with a clear mind and soul.

If you voted for Obama/Biden, who are pro-abortion and pro-infanticide, then you do not have a clear mind, soul or conscience -- therefore, it would be hypocritical for you to take Holy Communion.

Canon law is very clear -- it has nothing to do with bullying. If the Catholic pro-abortionist goes to Penance, then he will be able to receive Holy Communion. Only God will know what is confessed in the confessional, and if he is truly sorry for supporting pro-abortionists.

The priest / Bishops have every right to dictate to their parishoners who is eligible for Holy Communion -- they are not doing this on a public square -- they are doing it in MANY Catholic Churches nationwide -- including my own.

~*~

Here is Canon Law 915

he canon upon which the whole issue depends is canon 915, which states that those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion (my italics). On the surface, this may appear to constitute a pretty clear-cut answer to the question! One might say that politicians who repeatedly assert their support for the legalized killing of unborn children, and who vote again and again for laws to this effect, are playing with spiritual fire. If that doesn’t constitute “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin,” then what does? So under this canon, how could a Catholic elected official who supports abortion possibly be permitted to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist?

Yet there are a number of fine distinctions that need to be made — and usually aren’t — before drawing any black-and-white conclusions about the sacramental life of Catholic politicians who vote in favor of abortion “rights.” This is not to suggest that the Catholic Church holds that there is any moral grey area when it comes to abortion. Deliberately murdering innocent children is never acceptable, nor is the willing acquiescence of anyone in their deaths. But before we point fingers and utter outright condemnations across the board, let’s be sure we can appreciate both the theological and canonical distinctions that first must be made.

1) First of all, let’s note that as the canon clearly states, a person needn’t be under a sanction like excommunication in order to be denied Holy Communion. This cannot be stressed enough, because much paper and ink has been expended over the (entirely legitimate) question of whether pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholics are ipso facto excommunicated or not. But it is critical to keep in mind that this is a separate issue from that of whether or not they may receive the Eucharist.

For a distinction must be made between Catholics who are actually under a sanction like excommunication, and Catholics who “just” sin. While ordinarily it’s pretty safe to say that all excommunicated people have sinned, the reverse statement is untrue — since not all sinners are under excommunication.

And while an excommunicated person is not permitted to receive the Eucharist (c. 1331.1 n. 2), it does not follow that every Catholic who is not under excommunication may do so. Note that canon 915 is not limited to Catholics who are excommunicated (or interdicted, which does not concern us here). In other words, it is possible, under canon 915, for a Catholic to be refused Holy Communion without being under a sanction.

So is it safe to say that John Doe, by the very fact that he votes time and again in support of abortion, is a sinner? Well, there is no doubt that what he is doing is, according to Catholic teaching, morally wrong. It is objectively evil to cooperate in this way in the killing of the innocent.

A distinction has to be made between the personal responsibility of the Catholic wishing to receive a sacrament to be properly disposed internally, and the authority of the minister to make a determination that the person is not worthy to receive it. These may arguably be two sides of the same coin, but they still remain two very separate aspects of the administration of the sacraments. In the past some have claimed that observing canon 915 is entirely the responsibility of the communicant, not of the minister who is distributing Holy Communion.

But such an argument is utterly devoid of merit. The code actually addresses specifically the obligation of every Catholic to refrain from receiving the Eucharist if he is conscious of grave sin in canon 916. This canon states that such a person must first confess his sins in the sacrament of penance (except for extraordinary situations which are not the rule, and which do not concern us here). Note that this canon immediately follows the canon 915 we have already been discussing above. In other words, first canon 915 addresses the duty of the minister of Holy Communion to withhold it from certain persons who may seek it; and then canon 916, in turn, addresses the obligation of potential communicants to check their consciences before approaching to receive the Eucharist. These are two different, albeit related, responsibilities.

What are we to conclude from all this? In sum, dealing with abortion-supporting Catholic politicians who wish to receive Holy Communion requires a balancing act. On the one hand, the clergy have a duty to establish that these politicians understand that their position is fundamentally incompatible with Catholic teaching; if it is clear that they understand this and yet continue to maintain their positions anyway, they are not to receive the Eucharist. If they try to do so anyway, the minister of the sacrament should withhold it from them. We must firmly assert that the infinite gift that Our Lord gave us of Himself in the Holy Eucharist has to be accorded the reverence that is due to Him, and that scandal should be avoided at all costs.

you can read the canon law here: http://catholicexchange.com/2008/10/16/114145/

Originally Posted by boopster

A politician's first allegiance is allegedly to the people who elected him/her to represent them. From what I read, the church believes that a Catholic politician should vote based on the teachings of the church and if they go against it, then they don't have the right to participate in communion. This then becomes a tug-of-war between a politician doing the job they were elected to do and their religious beliefs.

that's all right on paper, and probably makes a person feel more upstanding --but let's get back to reality...

Yes, a Catholic or Christian should vote on what they were taught in church -- if anything, otherwise he is a hypocrit and does not have the right to celebrate the rites of the faith if he is not living the faith.

That is not to say that everyone does, but in our faith, we have the rite of penance, and before you celebrate in Holy Communion -- you should do so in clear conscience...you can't be sorry for the sin if you continually oppose the teaching of the faith and repeat the sin over and over.

That is the theology of our faith -- if you do not like that theology, the double doors in the back of the church work both ways.


there are 2 different topics at discussion in this thread ... one being the church in SC and other being the 3 Bishops.

Originally Posted by boopster

Yes people have rights to express themselves, but taking away communion in my opinion is a bullying tactic.

They are asking that you abstain from recieving communion if you voted for a POTUS who has stated that newborn babies have no rights and has desribed them as "post-partum fetus' " THe bishps have no idea who you voted for as all elections are by secret ballot - they are asking that you follow the dictates of your conciense.

Originally Posted by atprm

that's all right on paper, and probably makes a person feel more upstanding --but let's get back to reality...

Yes, a Catholic or Christian should vote on what they were taught in church -- if anything, otherwise he is a hypocrit and does not have the right to celebrate the rites of the faith if he is not living the faith.

That is not to say that everyone does, but in our faith, we have the rite of penance, and before you celebrate in Holy Communion -- you should do so in clear conscience...you can't be sorry for the sin if you continually oppose the teaching of the faith and repeat the sin over and over.

That is the theology of our faith -- if you do not like that theology, the double doors in the back of the church work both ways.

there are 2 different topics at discussion in this thread ... one being the church in SC and other being the 3 Bishops.