Good for Bishop Martino! It is time bishops remind people who do not actually hold the Catholic Faith that they should not take Communion.

This is not like the Romanian Bishop's letter on the war. He was clearly in the wrong. The war in Iraq was and is just. Even the Vatican acknowledged this while also saying that all war was a failure.

The Episcopal Church welcomes you!

I agree that the matter of abortion cannot rightly be compared to the war in Iraq.

Those whose unworthiness to receive Holy Communion is known publicly to the Church must be refused Holy Communion in order to prevent sacrilege and to prevent the Catholic in question from committing further grave sin through unworthy reception.

What about politicians (or anybody I guess whose stance becomes publicly known) who support capital punishment? No communion?

Adultery? No communion?

Divorced but no annullment and re-married? No communion?

Children out of wedlock? No communion?

They reject the Catholic Faith on life issues, publicly take Communion, and try to use the photo-op to say to voters (and the world) that you can vote to keep killing babies in the womb and be a good Catholic.

direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin

Do you really think that's what the politicians are saying?

What about politicians who support funding initiatives that advocate contraception? Should they be refused communion?

What if it came to light that there were any lay Catholics using contraceptives? Refuse them communion?

I would also have to assume that since Bishop Botean said the following
That anyone who falls in to that category would also be denied communion.

Every new election cycle I hear from unhappy, self-described Catholics who complain that abortion is too much of a litmus test. But isn’t that exactly what it should be? One of the defining things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their respect for human life; and specifically their rejection of abortion and infanticide. We can’t be Catholic and be evasive or indulgent about the killing of unborn life. We can’t claim to be “Catholic” and “pro-choice” at the same time without owning the responsibility for where the choice leads – to a dead unborn child. We can’t talk piously about programs to reduce the abortion body count without also working vigorously to change the laws that make the killing possible. If we’re Catholic, then we believe in the sanctity of developing human life. And if we don’t really believe in the humanity of the unborn child from the moment life begins, then we should stop lying to ourselves and others, and even to God, by claiming we’re something we’re not.

To continue to present one bishop’s perspective as if it outranked the Vatican’s official position is not really a wise tactic.

So his encyclical is actually mistaken and he misled his flock in to thinking support for or participation in the war is a mortal sin? Isn't that incredibly dangerous?

Is anyone who voted for the Democrats this year guilty of a mortal sin?

Should communion be withheld from everyone who did?

One of the defining things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their respect for human life; and specifically their rejection of abortion and infanticide. We can’t be Catholic and be evasive or indulgent about the killing of unborn life.

I agree that bishops must take great care in presenting Catholic Teaching.

Those who use their vote to work against Catholic values should not take communion until they examine their conscience and reform their lives.

So did Bishop Botean tell his flock that something is a mortal sin when it wasn't? Isn't that a pretty big deal?

Based on the various stances of both major parties, and the ways that participation in public life (as a politician or regular citizen) could inevitably lead to violation of Catholic values either through direct participation or support, how many people do you think are fit for communion at this time?

Archbishop Chaput again:
We have the duty to change bad laws and resist grave evil in our public life, both by our words and our non-violent actions. The truest respect we can show to civil authority is the witness of our Catholic faith and our moral convictions, without excuses or apologies.

I don’t know if it is a pretty big deal.

I do not think it is a numbers game.

Deacon Robert summarizes Catholic Teaching quite well. Bishop Martino is simply proclaiming the Catholic Faith and applying the prescriptions given in the canons.

No one rejoices in the fact that a politican - or any other Catholic - should engage in actions that exclude himself from partaking of the Eucharist. Indeed, I morn for such people and pray for them.

It is, however, very good to see a bishop stopping politicians from using the Eucharist as a political tool. Sadly, many politicians use the Eucharist as a political tool. They reject the Catholic Faith on life issues, publicly take Communion, and try to use the photo-op to say to voters (and the world) that you can vote to keep killing babies in the womb and be a good Catholic. I will note that the Church has clearly rejected the idea that there are other issues (even added together) that would comprise a moral good that would allow voting for a moral intrinsic evil (like abortion).

I also support Bishop Joseph 100% and will pray for him.

John

If my bishop started telling people something was a mortal sin, i.e. their souls were in peril of being eternally lost, and it turns out it was just something he made up on his own; I would consider it a fairly big deal. I for one would not trust his judgment or leadership.


I would guess that if you look at what both major parties do and stand for, you can find a slew of things (and big things) that directly violate Catholic principles. If our ability to receive communion is based on our participation in politics or public life, nobody should be receiving communion ever.

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

Unfortunately, the bishops seem to only target supposed pro-abortion politicians while no one else gets the same finger pointed at them. What about divorced and invalidly remarried people, people co-habitating outside of marriage, people who attend maybe twice yearly, and who still go to communion? I know some, I've seen them take communion. These politicians are the only unrepentant, notorious sinners that need public chastisement?

Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried

84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children's upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."(180)

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

Bob,

Well said. I do feel that I must say however that if Catholic teaching and practice were really carried out consistently, then almost no one would be able to receive communion. That more than 95% of Catholic couples practice contraception means that at the maximum, no more than 5% of any given parish should be receiving communion.

If my bishop started telling people something was a mortal sin, i.e. their souls were in peril of being eternally lost, and it turns out it was just something he made up on his own; I would consider it a fairly big deal. I for one would not trust his judgment or leadership.

The Church in the United States has done a poor job of forming the faith and conscience of Catholics for more than 40 years. And now we’re harvesting the results-- in the public square, in our families and in the confusion of our personal lives. I could name many good people and programs that seem to disprove what I just said. But I could name many more that do prove it, and some of them work in Washington.

The problem with mistakes in our past is that they compound themselves geometrically into the future unless we face them and fix them. The truth is, the American electorate is changing, both ethnically and in age. And unless Catholics have a conversion of heart that helps us see what we’ve become -- that we haven’t just “assimilated” to American culture, but that we’ve also been absorbed and bleached and digested by it – then we’ll fail in our duties to a new generation and a new electorate. And a real Catholic presence in American life will continue to weaken and disappear.

I would guess that if you look at what both major parties do and stand for, you can find a slew of things (and big things) that directly violate Catholic principles. If our ability to receive communion is based on our participation in politics or public life, nobody should be receiving communion ever.

Unfortunately, the bishops seem to only target supposed pro-abortion politicians while no one else gets the same finger pointed at them. What about divorced and invalidly remarried people, people co-habitating outside of marriage, people who attend maybe twice yearly, and who still go to communion? I know some, I've seen them take communion. These politicians are the only unrepentant, notorious sinners that need public chastisement?

Would everyone here be comfortable with Bishop Martino saying anyone who voted for the Democrats should be refused communion?

Would everyone here be comfortable with Bishop Martino saying anyone who voted for the Democrats should be refused communion?

Or, alternatively, anyone who did not vote Republican (for example voted third party or didn't vote) shouldn't receive communion since, afterall, they weren't doing all that is in their power to stop abortion and could be considered to be committing a sin of omission.

True Dr. Eric. I wasn't trying to make an argument. I was just teasing out one way of following something to a logical conclusion.

Though I have to add that I have met people who argue that failing to positively vote for the prolife candidate with the best chance of winning is sinning, even if not sinning to the extent of the one who votes for the prochoice candidate.

Joe

This reeks of neo-Donatism, and I think politicizing the Eucharist is a greater offense than pro-choice politicans.

This reeks of neo-Donatism, and I think politicizing the Eucharist is a greater offense than pro-choice politicans.

Who is politicizing the Eucharist, the bishops who stick to the traditional teaching on safeguarding the Eucharist, or the politicians who show up for photo-ops while profaning the Sacrament?

Excommunication should not lightly be imposed, and only after private attempts have been made to correct the problem. Nevertheless, there is a place for it as several bishops, including Martino, have concluded.

A pro-choice "Catholic" politician should not be permitted to use his or her receiving of the Eucharist as a photo opportunity. That sends the message that it is OK for Catholic politicians to diverge from the Church on moral issues of this magnitude. Such a message degrades the teaching of the Church and is, indeed, a scandal.

John K,
If you "don't get the photo op thing," you might take a look at the current story on the Rorate Caeli blogsite: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

It depicts pro-abortion mayor Antonio Villaraigosa yukking it up with the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles and an auxiliary bishop who I do not recognize. No, the mayor is not taking communion, but the principle is the same. The Church should not be lending its political support to pro-abortion politicians. That amounts to scandal in my book.

Of course. But to suggest that it's okay that President Clinton took Communion because no one is really worthy of it is ludicrous, in my opinion, and offensive.

Alexis

Kathleen,
Good thoughts. I would quickly point out that Captial Punishment is considered a Just punishment for a Guilty murderer (argued by many, and me as well.) Abortion is the killing of an Innocent. I'm not clear on your intention, but I thought I'd make that note. Thanks for your post.
Steve

Capital punishment in today's society is, 99.99% of the time, at least to me, vindictive, morally debased, uncivilized and a waste of taxpayers' money when there is often a cheaper alternative (life in prison). But I understand the vast majority of people on this board don't agree with me.

I am all for justice. But I don't necessarily think it is just to kill someone because they killed someone else.

I respect that there are many opinions on this issue, though.

Alexis