www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Priest: No communion for Obama supporters

Here's another article on this issue:

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20081113/NEWS01/811130314

Is the headline correct?

In Joe's reference I saw this:


It seems that he would be asking them to reconcile and abstain from communion until they do, not that he would be refusing communion to Obama voters (which is what I assumed from the headline).

CAUTION!

The Catholic Church does not permit the parish priest to excommunicate anyone; the most he can do is refer the matter to the Bishop. Only the Bishop is permitted to decree someone's excommunication, which is a very serious decision not to be undertaken lightly. The last such case that I can remember in the USA was the excommunication of Leander Perez, who practiced an unusual form of hospitality: he liked to invite African-Americans to come and be guests of honor for dinner in the alligator pits! The Bishop followed the canonical procedure "by the book", including the third warning, and only then did the Bishop pronounce the excommunication.

There was also case of a Bishop attempting to level an interdict on a Maronite parish (this was before the Maronites had their own bishops in the USA) for a bureaucratic reason; as a result for a few months the diocese had the dubious privilege of being the only place in the world with a Maronite parish not in communion with Rome! Then a Maronite bishop came from Lebanon - the people had written to their Patriarch asking for help. When the Latin bishop proved obdurate the Patriarch took it to the Pope, who lifted the "interdict" and had the Apostolic Delegate tell the Latin bishop to cut out the nonsense, right then and there.

Partly for historical reasons, and partly because of human nature, many Catholic people become annoyed or worse when the pastor or the bishop attempts to tell them how to vote. I would suggest that the best Catholic/Christian response to the abortion holocaust is a mass movement (not unlike the Civil Rights Movement) to reach the hearts of the American people. Pragmatically, this is much more apt to succeed than an attempt to prohibit Catholics from voting for the candidate of their preference - especially since the secret ballot remains the law. There is no easy way to win the struggle against abortion; the hard way recognizes and accepts the necessity to reach the hearts of the people and win their acceptance to our fundamental position: abortion is murder.

Fr. Serge

Dear Father Serge,

If a Catholic confesses to his Catholic priest that he has murdered someone, had an abortion, engaged in extramarital or homosexual sex, etc... will the priest not ask him to abstain from holy communion for a certain period of time as penance?

I am quite curious.

Ofcourse depending on the sin, I know that periods of excommunication can differ from jurisdiction, to priest, to monk-priest in Orthodoxy.

Respectfully kissing your right hand,
Alice

Catholic priests are not encouraged to impose a "fast from Communion" for a designated period as a penance. On the other hand, if there is an ongoing pattern of serious sin and the penitent shows no sign or intention of abandoning such a pattern, the confessor will often say something along the lines of "it's up to you; either stop feeding people to the alligators or be honest enough to stop receiving Holy Communion".

But the confessor is forbidden to make this public - only the Bishop can do that.

with every blessing,

Fr. Serge

His methods are in question but I admire his intent.

CDL

I have to agree with Father Serge. I share his concern.

His intent may have been better delivered in "social activism" and a strong homily. Perhaps it would be more effective to form a strong pro-life committee at his church to form prayer lines and train and place sidewalk councilors at local abortion clinics. Even two saves a month will make a big difference to those children who have been given a chance at life.

My priest is very pro life and inserts abortion into nearly every homily, but he has never crossed the line to tell people that they should seek penance if they voted for Obama. I would suspect that he leaves such cases for the confessional or to private teaching.

Would it be much different if Fr. Newman stood up and asked all the women who have had abortions recently to abstain from communion?

Terry

The priest in question has neither denied Holy Communion to, or attempted to excommunicate anyone. What he has done is to uphold the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I know a few priests belonging to Opus Dei, who at every mass, remind the congregation, that Holy Communion is only for Catholics who are in a state of grace, and that if you are not in a state of grace we are always available to hear your confession. And as Father Newman put it "voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

This is, I think a good and proper thing to do. I have heard the same type of thing in Orthodox churches and monasteries. One should be reminded of these things (confession, state of grace, etc.) from time to time.

Frequent communion is a very good thing, but only if it is properly catechised and prepared for. I think its intent has been somewhat abused.

For instance, I know many young Catholic high schoolers who I have seen at school Masses, who I knew were not in a state of grace, receiving communion....I don't know that this was a good thing. It was a given that everyone should receive...and the only ones who did not were the Orthodox students.

Whatever...so much confusion these days, about everything and everywhere....may God have mercy on us all!

In Christ,
Alice

Regarding the Obama thing, I think that is somewhat extreme because politics involve many other issues that are not of the moral realm, though I can see the train of thought.

So why are Obama supporters singled out? McCain is not a pro-life candidate, he also supports anti-life measures. The only true pro-life candidates were third party. SO shouldn't the message be consistent? whether you voted for McCain or Obama - get thee to the confessional!

this priest is a dream come true for the American Athiest Association! For years they have been trying to remove the tax deductible status of religious groups and he's giving them ammo.


off topic...why do posts always indicate that they are in reply to a certain poster when they are only general posts to the thread as a whole?

I recommend that Michael Thoma familiarize himself with the statement on “Faithful Citizenship” issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. In a situation where there are no pro-life third party candidates or the pro-life third party candidates do not have a chance of winning one may choose to vote for the candidate that is least likely to advance morally flawed positions. To do so is not a sin. Further, one must honestly compare the beliefs of the two candidates. It is irresponsible to place both Senator McCain and Senator Obama at the same level. Senator McCain is wrong about embryonic stem cell research but supports a human life amendment, and had promised to continue the pro-life accomplishments of the current president. Senator Obama has indicated that on the first day of his presidency he would like to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” (repealing all federal, state and local laws that in any way restrict abortion, including Partial-Birth Abortion (infanticide) and would immediately issue executive orders to reverse the “Mexico City Policy” which prohibited the use of federal funding to promote abortion internationally.

The formal reference from the “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizensip” is as follows:

The protection of innocent life in the womb (from conception to natural birth) is paramount and outweighs all other moral issues. The protection of innocent life follows close behind (i.e., the immorality of euthanasia). Other issues are important but compared to these are secondary.

This issue has been discussed numerous times and I recommend strongly that Michael Thoma learn what the Church teaches before he leads anyone astray.

Isn't it curious how such groups only go after pro-life speakers in Churches that touch on politics but never go after pro-death speakers who touch on politics? Senator Obama spoke from a number of pulpits during the campaign, as did Senators Clinton, Kerry and before them VP Gore and President Clinton promoted the "choice" to kill children in the womb. Not a peep from these groups! In the end the Church must do what is right, regardless of the penalties inflicted by the state.

Because the way the software is written you are always responding to someone else's post (unless you are the one starting the thread).

David,

You are correct that there are exceptions, but I think that on the whole your post supports my point! People complained to the IRS about pro-death politicians preaching in churches, and the IRS followed up. Groups like American Athiests and the ACLU were not leading the charge like they lead it against Christians and other pro-life people!

John

Is this a documented fact or an assumption? Aren't the members of the ACLU and the Am. Athiests "people" also?

Yes, it is documented fact. Christian / Pro-Life / Pro Traditonal Values people and groups are targeted by groups such as the ACLU. It is only logical since groups like the ACLU are openly committed to keeping religious expression from the political arena.

You wrote: "Aren't the members of the ACLU and the Am. Athiests 'people' also?"

Yes. Nothing in my post suggests that they are not.

The ironic thing here is that if a Church were taken to task by the IRS and took the matter to the Supreme Court it is very likely the current Supreme Court would rule in their favor (on the basis of free speech).

This priest was way out-of-line and over the top

I am proud and happy to assure you that my parish does indeed include some anti-abortion activists, who engage in occasional rescue work (they have to go to England to find publicly identified abortuaries), challenge "pro-choice" speakers, pray regularly on these matters, and so forth. They know very well that they have my full spiritual support. I only wish that I had more like them.

I am also proud and happy that despite all the pressure we get from the EU and the USA, abortion continues to be illegal in Ireland, and is forbidden by the Irish Constitution.

Fr. Serge

Brian,

I would suggest you speak with your spiritual Father before making such claims.

So, he's going to bully everyone into believing in life issues in the same order of priority as he does. All people have to do is just pretend to agree,but he can't make someone agree in their heart or conscience. I have no respect for this priest,he's a bully.

I have no respect for any bully. I'm still recovering from the experience of a priest acquaintance who was threatened - by one of his own parishioners - with actual, physical violence for the "sin" of mentioning that he planned to vote for Al Gore.

Fr. Serge

With all due respect the church puts abortion at the top of the list. The killing of an innocent babies is what made this priest say what he did. Like it or not what Obama will do for abortion is heartbreaking. The priest knows this and he knows Catholic dogma. He is not some bully or some apologist for the republican party.

For the record the US bishops have addressed some of Obama's plans for abortion this week. The "Freedom of choice" act would force abortion on Catholic hospitals. The bishops said they will close every Catholic hospital if this is passed.

When Obama starts doing what he has promised to do with abortion are all you Obama supporters going to find ways to justify it? Will you be surprised? What about when this bill is passed? What about the bill taking away conscince clauses, perental notifications, and forcing abortion on religious hospitals?

The Catholic church is very clear which issue is at the top of the list. The basis for all Catholic social justice is the right to life.

Here's what James Francis Cardinal Stafford recently had to say in regards to the election of Mr Obama.

His Eminence James Francis Cardinal Stafford criticized President-elect Barack Obama as "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic," and said he campaigned on an "extremist anti-life platform," Thursday night in Keane Auditorium during his lecture "Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: Being True in Body and Soul."

"Because man is a sacred element of secular life," Stafford remarked, "man should not be held to a supreme power of state, and a person's life cannot ultimately be controlled by government."

"For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden," Stafford said, comparing America's future with Obama as president to Jesus' agony in the garden. "On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake."

Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the "hot, angry tears of betrayal" by beginning a new sentiment where one is "with Jesus, sick because of love."

With all due respect to the Cardinal his rhetoric here strikes me as a touch hysterical. Yes, Obama will do some very bad things with regard to abortion. But I do not think that he is bringing about the apocalypse.

Joe

The threats of actual physical violence against the priest were wrong and must be condemned. But if the priest voted for a pro-abortion candidate when there was a pro-life candidate on the ballot then he committed a sin. If he knew about the Church Teaching regarding abortion and life issues then it was a voluntary sin. If he did not know (which is hard to believe) then it was an involuntary sin. It is amazing how many priests only give lip service to the Church's Teachings on life issues and then vote against these Teachings at every opportunity.

According to Roman Catholic doctrine (especially as recently articulated by Pope Benedict XVI) one can vote for a pro-choice candidate even if the other candidate is not pro-choice as long as one has proportionate reasons for doing so. Now it seems to me that determining what is proportionate reason is not obvious. In fact, I can imagine all sorts of ways to produce proportionate reasons to have voted for Obama rather than McCain. I maintain that someone who voted for Obama in spite of Obama's position on abortion may be guilty of no sin at all as long as the person sincerely believed that there were proportionate reasons for doing so. Indeed, it may even be the case that the person who voted for Obama is incorrect in his assessment of the situation and therefore, was incorrect in his judgment of what constituted a proportionate reason. But this is an error of prudence and not something that should be subject to excommunication.

Quite honestly, I am very grateful for the relatively apolitical stance of Orthodox clergy in the United States. The hierarchy would certainly say that we should not vote in order to support abortion as a policy. But I think that our hierarchy realizes just how complex voting really is. For example, two priests I know voted for McCain and one did so because of Obama's view of abortion. But I was never condemned nor told that I had sinned because I voted for Obama (again, in spite of his position on abortion and not because of it). Also, I don't think I've ever heard a political sermon in an Orthodox Church (though I'm sure it happens) and I am grateful for that because I think that the Church is at her best when she focuses on spiritual issues and is not at her best when she becomes too much emeshed in political interests. It is the Church's job to preach that abortion is morally wrong and that those who procur abortions are guilty of murder and are to be punished accordingly. It is the Church's job to tell us that we are to be witnesses for life, against abortion and other crimes against life, and that we should do what we can to promote life and discourage abortion. But it is not the Church's job to tell us what political strategy is best for ending abortion.

Joe

Joe,

What issues added together are more important than stopping the murder of over 4,000 babies each day?

Preaching against abortion and urging people to vote for pro-life candidates is a moral responsibility of clergy.

Helen

TRULY IS A SAD STATE OF LIFE! If the Church doesn't speak out against it, who will?

Biracial Barack Obama's election is being hailed as a triumph for blacks. Obama's pro-abortion stand, however, is negatively impacting the black community.

New York State Health Department statistics reveal that in 2006, 41.5 percent of all babies aborted in our state were black.

Nationwide, blacks make up 12 percent of the U.S. population but have 35 percent of all abortions. Half of black babies conceived are aborted. Obama supports Planned Parenthood, which has 78 percent of its clinics in minority neighborhoods and whose founder Margaret Sanger was a racist, according to www.blackgenocide.org. [blackgenocide.org.]

Alveda King, niece of the late Republican Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., told lifenews.com, “I know in my heart that if Uncle Martin were alive today, he would join with me in the greatest civil rights struggle of this generation — the recognition of the unborn child's basic right to life.” Obama needs to stop promoting the abortion genocide that is destroying black children in disproportionate numbers!
http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20081117/OPINION03/811170335

Helen,

That is a very good question and I doubt that I can give a satisfactory answer. Let me try though and give you my reasons for voting for Obama. It is hard to know where to begin so I'll just jump in.

The first thing that I think is important is that there are a number of intrinsically evil policies promoted by President Bush and the Republicans. For example, the use of torture in interrogating subjects. Also, I would add the lack of due process and the indefinite confinement and interrogation of people who may have not even committed any crimes. Second, there is the dangerous expansion of executive power to unconstitutional levels, including illegal spying on citizens. Also, there is the conducting of a "preemptive" unjust war under false pretenses. This includes government deception and lying (both intrinsically evil activities).

Now, in addition to these intrinsically evil activities of the current administration (most of which would have continued under a McCain administration), there are other practical policy issues that affect the daily lives of Americans. The bad economic policies of the current administration (and Republicans in general) leads to more poverty which leads to greater crime and social unrest and more of a demand for abortion. Also, the failure of Republicans to put forth a truly comprehensive health care proposal to guarantee 100% coverage leads directly to thousands of deaths each year. Just to give you one example, in most cases, if you have cancer and you do not have insurance, you don't get treatment. You die! This is an empirically verifiable fact and it happens often. Sure, those without insurance can get indigent care in ER's for acute illnesses, but anything requiring major surgery or long term treatment and it's , "too bad folks, remember me when you get to heaven!" The Republican party as a whole has supported the insurance companies over the best interests of American citizens. I could go on but my point is that Republican policies lead directly to thousands of deaths and ruined lives.

Now, on top of all this, I would propose that the fact that Republicans have promoted bad policies and done such a terrible job of governing actually weakens the credibility of the pro-life movement. Imagine if President Bush had listened to sound advice and not charged into Iraq. He would have had more energy to devote to the prolife cause and he would have had more credibility. But when a "prolife" politician fails in the public eye by supporting bad economic and foreign policies, then their momentum to work for real prolife change is dissolved. We have to remember that the vast majority of people do not really care about the abortion issue (hence why it was almost absent from political discussion this election). The vast majority of people vote on economic and foreign policy issues and so if we are going to be successful in the prolife movement, then we must support candidates who promote sound economic and foreign policies.

This leads me to another point. While it is true that President Bush has put the brakes on some policies that would expand abortion and while it is true that he has appointed justices to the supreme court who would likely overturn Roe v. Wade (though we don't know this for sure)it is also true that President Bush and Republicans in general have done very little to stress the importance of choosing life over abortion. I also would point out that a number of pro-RoevWade justices were appointed by Republicans (O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy) and Republicans in congress voted overwhelmingly to confirm other proabortion judges like Ginsburg and Breyer. If the prolife issue was as important to Republicans as the prochoice is to democrats, then we would expect republicans to filibuster and oppose all judicial nominees that are not committed to overturning Roe.v.Wade, but alas this will never happen because deep down, they really don't care. One would also think that if we really believe that prolife is the issue that trumps all else, then we should expect our candidates to use the bully pulpit as often as possible and to stress that nothing is more important than overturning Roe v. Wade. In fact, perhaps we should ask each candidate for public office, this question: Is there any issue that is more important than the issue of overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal?

It would be interesting to ask President Bush that question. And this leads me to another point. Republicans have taken the prolife vote for granted. They all know that all that they have to do is say that they are prolife and, in fact, be less prochoice than the other guy. One could argue as a viable political strategy that prolifers should abandon the Republican party, at least temporarily, and then come back only when they supply us with worthy candidates. Such would be long term thinking over short term.

This is my reasoning in voting for Obama. I could be wrong, but I feel that I've voted in good conscience and that my vote was not a sin and my spiritual father has not told me otherwise.

Joe

Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party was the most in line with Catholic teaching. Even if he is a Baptist.

Define torture. Are we torturing 4,000 people to death each day by pouring chemicals on them to kill them or literally pulling them apart limb by limb until they die? If we are not then your reasoning doesn't work.

Did you know that Obama announced that the only executive orders from President Bush he is going to overturn immediately are those relating to abortion? The New York Times website reported over the weekend that he is keeping the rest of them in place – including the warrantless wiretaps.

As a Catholic I can believe that the premeditate wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are both just. You are Orthodox? Where do your bishops tell you that all Orthodox must oppose these wars as unjust? Didn’t they liberate 50 million people? Isn’t it good that Hussein is no longer gassing the Kurds or feeding children into grinders before their parents?

This is false and has been proven false. Wealthier countries have higher abortion rates then poorer ones.

Bad economic policies of the current administration? After the 9/11 our economy took a huge hit. And we recovered big time. The mortgage and economic mess can be traced to Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd and other Democrats. They wanted everyone to own a home and forced Fannie May and Freddie Mac and banks to give mortgages to people who would never be able to pay them back. Bush demanded that they provide oversight and tighten lending regulations. He was treated as wanting to keep the poor down.

Socialized health care is wrong. There is nothing in the Bible or Church Teaching that says we have an obligation to give the government control of our health care. There is nothing in the Bible or Church Teaching that says we need to support government run, rationed, socialized medicine.

Do you really want Barney Frank and Christ Dood – who brought you this economic mess – to be in charge of your health care?

The rest of your post is just trying to explain away your vote for an abortionist.

Because the Republicans take the pro-life vote for granted you voted pro-abortion?

What does that say?

If a candidate came along and had the greatest ideas for solving our economic ills and for getting the U.S. out of our foreign policy blunders, but says that they are racist against a certain ethnic group (Asian, Black, Hispanic, etc...), would they not automatically disqualify themselves as being a viable candidate to vote for? In my book, yes, because they are showing their true character.

This same reasoning should have been used for the Presidential election. If Obama did have all the answers (far from it), the fact that he is a supporter of murder (abortion), and radically so, disqualified him as a viable candidate in my mind. No other factors matter! Pro-life first, then go down the list on the others issues.

Obviously more people must have disagreed with this analysis.

Mike

Helen, I just want to respond to one point. You ask me:

You are Orthodox? Where do your bishops tell you that all Orthodox must oppose these wars as unjust?

It is not the job of Bishops to determine for everyone which wars are just and which are unjust. It is the job of everyone to determine this for themselves in accordance with a sound moral and political philosophy. I'll just say that I am as convinced of the immorality of the Iraq war as you are convinced of the immorality of abortion.

Also, I would point out that there is a difference between the government directly sponsoring activies (torture, unjust war) and the government failing to make activities engaged in by private individuals illegal (abortion). While the latter is still wrong and it both bad morally and politically, it is not the same as the actual engaging in torture by the government. If the government required people to get abortions then it would be equivalent. But, as my wife (also 100% prolife) points out, no one in government is forcing these women to have abortions. This is not China. And being prochoice is not the same as being proabortion. I do agree that being pro-choice is certainly politically flawed and can be morally flawed as well, but most people who are prochoice do not like abortion. Most people simply believe that the government is not the best entity to decide the question. I think that this is wrong. I think that it is a bad political position to take and for me, a bad moral position to take. If it were up to me personally, abortion would be illegal in most if not all circumstances (I can see the argument for permitting abortion in the case of preserving the life of the mother). But I do think that there are people who are personally opposed to abortion and do not support it, but they do not think that the government should be involved in the issue either. I can understand that position though I don't agree with it. I don't expect anyone here to agree with me on this and I suppose I'm going out on a limb revealing my own personal choices. But unless my Bishop tells me I ought to do otherwise, I am not going to worry about it.

Joe

Hey Lawrence, I considered this option as well. And in fact, I might just vote Constitution party from now on, or write in Ron Paul.

Joe

Mike, I understand your position. But I think that there are other ways of construing the situation. Imagine it is 1850 and you have a senate candidate who is for a Missouri compromise type of solution to the problem of slavery. The candidate believes that slavery is wrong but also believes that it would be impractical to try to take government action to outlaw it. Let's say that he also favors what are sound economic and foreign policies. Now, let's say his opponent is an abolitionist who says that slavery is such a scourge to human rights, that we have no business calling ourselves a free nation as long as there are slaves. Let us also suppose that this abolitionist candidate believes that the fifth amendment to the constitution should be abolished and also favors entering into an unprovoked war with France. Who is the right person to vote for?

Joe

And by the way (I'm going to get politically incorrect here ) it is not at all clear that the Civil War was the best response to the issue of secession and slavery. Great Britain managed to end slavery without a civil war and it is quite likely that in time, it could have been ended without such a war here. Think of the tragic loss of life, enmnity between families, and so forth that could have been prevented had the North been more willing to be reasonable with the south. It isn't necessarily the best thing in all situations to take government action to end an intrinsic evil. Sometimes, it is better, looking at things in a long term view, to permit an evil to occur lest other evils (sometimes greater) follow. I believe that Thomas Aquinas said something to this effect (his example was prostitution).

Joe

Is it then like the case of salvery; the government didn't require people to have slaves, therefore,...?

Yes it is equivalent. And, in fact, it is not clear that advocating abolition to the point of provoking secession and civil war was the most prudent thing to do politically. Politics is not simply about laying down moral absolutes and doing all that is in your power to get others to comply. Politics is the "art of the possible," and very much relies on strategies that involve tolerating evils in some circumstances.

Joe

With all do respect the goverment pays for abortions so they do sponser abortion. I fail to see how you can put abortion as something other than the top issue. Some people wanted Bush to go into Iraq because Sadam had killed hundreds of thousands of people. Right or wrong many felt at the time they were going to help people by getting rid of the dictator. Even if you think we torture those terrorists the shear numbers alone would dictate abortion as a top priority.

True, abortion tops the list but,with all due respect, there are more ways to skin a cat than to sabotage the country with dangerously ignorant leaders,disregard (disrespect)the poor, the Iraqi babies born with birth defects because of our bombs,those whose lives are made a living hell because of our presence in Iraq,and those going down the tubes because of our economy. IF these problems affected us we wouldn't so flippantly decide,that the only way to cure abortion is to sacrifice the rest of the world.The church does not ask us to do that.

I recently finished reading Frederica Matthewes-Green's wonderful book Real Choices:listening to women,looking for alternatives to abortion. There are many things we can do to find solutions to help prevent abortion that could lead to the lack of a need for abortion clinics to even exist.

Indigo

Your statement is clearly wrong. Orthodoxy teaches that abortion is always immoral, that it is an intrinsic evil. It does not teach that the war in Iraq is unjust. You can be Orthodox and support the war as a just war. You cannot be orthodox and say abortion is ok. You are putting your personal convictions before Orthodox Teaching.

This is a cop out. The government pays for a lot of the abortions. If President Obama has his way the government – meaning you and me – will pay for all of them. The government sponsors all these activities from abortion to the just war (it’s only your opinion that the war is unjust – it is not the opinion of Orthodoxy).

That is another cop out. It is good people like you and you wife that it difficult for pro-lifers to win victories. You get bogged down in other issues. If you are not alive you can’t fight those other issues. When President Obama signs the “Freedom of Choice Act” that overturns all laws restricting abortion and even infanticide you will be partially responsible for the increased number of deaths that follow.

If you are not alive then you can’t worry about the other issues.

Disregard the poor? If you want to help them then don’t enslave them to welfare. Give them limited benefits and put them to work. Feed them while you teach them the skills to support themselves. The socialism being pushed by the liberal Democrats is going to kill the country. Look what it did in the mortgage sub-prime mess. Everyone got a loan. Even the people who could not pay them back. Look what happened. Barny Frank & Chris Dodd and their friends in Congress led us to these tough economic times. They are both liberal Democrats who lean towards socialism. They will ruin us.

Curing abortion does not mean sacrificing the rest of the world.

You want to see birth defects in Iraq? Go visit the Kurds. The chemical bombs dropped by Saddam Hussein left them with very high levels of birth defects. It is amazing how some people forget that we have liberated 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq and only see America as an evil nation. Such people are wrong.

Have you been a witness for life in front of an abortion death camp?

Have you given of your private resources to funds to help single mothers bear their children and either keep them or give them for adoption?

Have you contacted your Church to see what you can do to get involved?

Have you voted pro-life? If you have not voted pro-life then you voted pro-abortion. Nothing adds up to be more immoral then the murder 4,000 babies each day in America.

Orthodoxy teaches that abortion is always immoral (unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother). Orthodoxy has not doctrinally defined the best political strategy for combating abortion. Orthodoxy also condemns all unjust wars. But Orthodoxy doesn't pronounce (necessarily) whether each war is just or unjust. Individual believers must sort that out in accordance with sound moral reasoning. But all unjust wars are intrinsically evil and so if I do judge a war to be unjust (and I have as much authority to do that as any rational human being) then I must also look at it as intrinsically evil. If I do regard "enhanced interrogation techniques" as torture, then I must hold that such techniques are intrinsically evil.

Also, I have to say that I have some problems with the way many Catholics seem to understand proportionality. It seems that according to some, if I am confronted with two intrinsic evils, then I should judge which one will produce the most harm and oppose that first. Now I don't have a problem with this except that it easily slips into consequentialism (of the Utilitarian variety), especially if we start quantifying the harm done (4.000 babies per day vs. x000 Iraqis killed per year, and so forth). While that is certainly one rational way of understanding proportionality it is not necessarily the only way to understand it. One must also take into account how realistic it is to expect much successs in ending or hindering a particular evil. If stopping the murder of 4,000 babies per day in the U.S. is not a realistically attainable goal (except in the real long stretch) yet stopping an unjust war that kills thousands and stopping certain government activities (torture) is something realistically attainable, then it might be more prudent to attempt to stop these latter things first. We can oppose abortion as vehemently as we want to and yet may not be able to ever do much to stop it. But there are other vital issues that we can solve right now and if we think that these issues will be better addressed by democrats than republicans, then it is not imprudent for the short term to support the democrats.

Joe

Frankly Helen I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore. There are so many logical fallacies in your last post that I don't know where to begin. But the main reason that I'm not going to discuss this is that you are veering off topic. The topic is not whether liberal democrats are socialist or whether they have good or bad economic policies. The topic is whether one ought to refrain from communion for voting for a pro-choice politician and secondarily, the topic is whether there are any legitimate (non-sinful) reasons for voting for a pro-choice politician. If you believe that the Republicans support numerous intrinsic evils (as I do) then you can balance such evils against abortion and perhaps come up with a conclusion that favors voting for the democrats. Or perhaps you may not. But instead of just giving blanket condemnations and calling people wrong and immoral, I think it would better facilitate reasonable dialogue to try to listen to others and understand their reasoning. Frankly, the tone is getting a little condescending and so I now withdraw from this conversation.

Joe

I was responding again to your earlier posts which included justifications that have nothing to do with intrinsic evils.

If one voted for a pro-abortion (not “pro-choice”) politician when there was a pro-life politician available then yes, one should not take Communion.

The only legitimate reasons for voting for a pro-abortion (not “pro-choice”) politician is when there is not a pro-life candidate on the ballot. McCain was not perfect. But when compared to Obama he is almost perfect since Obama is really bad on life issues.

Abortion is always an intrinsic evil.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not intrinsic evils, and both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches allow their members the freedom to believe that these wars of liberation were just wars.

Again I ask (and Joe always sidesteps) what intrinsic evils add up to the murder of 4,000 babies each day in America? So long as good people like Joe support abortionists with their votes advancing the agenda of life will be very difficult.

"Abortion is always an intrinsic evil."

Indeed. So is embryonic stem cell research. No one has yet made a compelling argument that McCain would have done anything to limit abortion - his own campaign people publically distancing themselves from the much more pro-life Palin camp since the very flawed campaign ended speaks for itself. I don't count pandering to a dwindling conservative fringe for much. If we are going to start triaging those who support various forms of infanticide, we have certainly fallen into the abyss of relativism.

Remember the National Right-to-Life committee ad during the primary season: "If you want a strong pro-life president...don't vote for John McCain". Some of us don't forget things or look the other way over a period of a few months, nor even bend at every capricious and Machiavellian twist of a PAC firmly entrenched in the upper management of one of the major political parties. I vote for life, not parties or PACs.

Lord, have mercy on us all; may our prayer to You increase.

Enough !! What is done is done! Stop throwing brickbats at one another !! It seems to me prayer is the thing that is now needed after this election. Save your energy for that.

Viking

Very well said.

Ryan

Helen:

Do you think you have equal footing with a priest or bishop. You have no right to judge who should or should not be receiving communion.

Viking

I’d say this priest is right on target. It is interesting to know that exit polls revealed that there was a direct relationship between participation in worship services and voting for Pro-Life candidates. The more often one worshipped with the Church (i.e., Sunday Mass or daily Mass) the more likely one was to vote for Pro-Life candidates. Those who worshipped less then weekly or not at all (this last group contains 1/3 of all Catholics) voted mostly for Pro-Abortion candidates.

I will give Father Newman the last word here except for one comment and three links. Senator McCain was far from perfect. But he would not be asking Congress to send him the “Freedom of Choice Act” so that he could sign it on his first day in office, or promise to overturn the Mexico City policy on his first day in office, or be using a pro-abortion litmus test as a qualification for court appointments.

Fargo Bishop Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, D.D. has an excellent column in his diocesan newspaper this week: Support, in word and deed, the dignity of human life [fargodiocese.org] (PDF)

Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph, [on election day] in a clear reference to presidential candidate Obama, said that it is gravely sinful for a Catholic to "support a person who wants to go to complete full-scale war against the unborn": Blunt statements for US bishops: Voting for pro-abortion candidates is gravely sinful [catholicculture.org]

CatholicCulture.org Commentary: You can't be any poorer then dead. [catholicculture.org]