Catholics who support abortion should not receive Communion, says Archbishop Burke

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,267
55,106
Woods
✟4,567,557.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

He referred to “public officials who, with knowledge and consent, uphold actions that are against the Divine and Eternal moral law. For example, if they support abortion"

ROME (CNA) -
The prefect of the Apostolic Signature, Archbishop Raymond Burke, said this week that Catholics, especially politicians who publically defend abortion, should not receive Communion, and that ministers of Communion should be responsibly charitable in denying it to them if they ask for it, “until they have reformed their lives.”

In an interview with the magazine, Radici Christiane, Archbishop Burke pointed out that there is often a lack of reverence at Mass when receiving Communion. “Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a sacrilege,” he warned. “If it is done deliberately in mortal sin it is a sacrilege.”

To illustrate his point, he referred to “public officials who, with knowledge and consent, uphold actions that are against the Divine and Eternal moral law. For example, if they support abortion, which entails the taking of innocent and defenseless human lives. A person who commits sin in this way should be publicly admonished in such a way as to not receive Communion until he or she has reformed his life,” the archbishop said.

Continued- http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28957
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,016
13,034
✟1,073,197.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The USCCB suggests that parishes hold discussion groups where citizens can discuss the seven key social themes.

That's right, there's seven.

Count 'em.

Oh, and they don't say, "Six of them don't count."

And they don't say, "Work on one for the next twenty years, and then worry about the other six."

Only my favorite expatriate emigrant archbishop says that. Ahh....absence makes the heart grow fonder where the good archbishop is concerned.

So, since you are all so interested in catechisis, here is the complete list, all seven.

Life and Dignity of the Human Person
The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching. In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia. The value of human life is being threatened by cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and the use of the death penalty. Catholic teaching also calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding increasingly effective ways to prevent conflicts and resolve them by peaceful means. We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person.
Call to Family, Community, and Participation
The person is not only sacred but also social. How we organize our societyin economics and politics, in law and policy directly affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community. Marriage and the family are the central social institutions that must be supported and strengthened, not undermined. We believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable.
Rights and Responsibilities
The Catholic tradition teaches that human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Therefore, every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities--to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.
Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.
The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected--the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative.
Solidarity
We are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, wherever they may be. Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that “if you want peace, work for justice.”1 The Gospel calls us to be peacemakers. Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we promote peace in a world surrounded by violence and conflict.
Care for God’s Creation
We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of creation. Care for the earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of our faith. We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of God’s creation. This environmental challenge has fundamental moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored.
This summary should only be a starting point for those interested in Catholic social teaching. A full understanding can only be achieved by reading the papal, conciliar, and episcopal documents that make up this rich tradition. For a copy of the complete text of Sharing Catholic Social Teaching: Challenges and Directions (No. 5-281) and other social teaching documents, call 800-235-8722.

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.shtml
 
Upvote 0
E

ElviraRio

Guest
I did read it and I agree with it but I am also sick and tired of people saying "there is no pro-life candidate in this race"

My point is:

There was NEVER a pro-life candidate in ANY race and, by extention, pro-lifer banging on only one party is strictly a political thing masquarating as a moral issue.
I'm w/ ya all the way on that one, dude.
 
Upvote 0
S

SpiritualAntiseptic

Guest
McCain has no plans to end abortion. His plan is to make it a state problem, which means abortion will always be legal somewhere in the USA.
McCain is pro-federalism, not pro-life.

Bush is actually pro-life, and yet even he was unable to change our policies of abortion being allowed everywhere, and for everyone at anytime during the pregnancy.

If Bush who is really pro-life couldn't do it, then a luke-warm pro-baby-killing-for-research guy like McCain certainly isn't going to do it.

What did you want Bush to do?

I mean, seriously?

No really- what policy should he have introduced?

Bush appointed two new supreme court justices that opposed abortion. We just need one more, and Obama isn't going to bring it.
That is, in fact, all that Bush could have done.

If you vote for Obama, you will also be supporting partial birth abortions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MichaelFJF
Upvote 0

geocajun

Priest of the holy smackrament
Dec 25, 2002
25,479
1,689
✟35,477.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
they get abortions because they feel unloved and worthless. No amount of legislation can help to change this, this work is for those willing to go to the women one on one and help them.
Geee... thanks for clearing that up. And here i was all confused by conflicting scientific studies into the matter.
 
Upvote 0

geocajun

Priest of the holy smackrament
Dec 25, 2002
25,479
1,689
✟35,477.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
What did you want Bush to do?

I mean, seriously?

Legislate? It isn't the job of the courts to introduce legislation. Bush didn't introduce legislation that would end abortion - he focused all of his energy on the unjust war we're fighting in Iraq. He could have done more.

If you vote for Obama, you will also be supporting partial birth abortions.

non sequitur.

but we can both play the silly illogical game...
if you vote for McCain you support killing babies for research.

see?
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,336
✟788,307.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
The reason the line gets drawn at Abortion is not because the others are unimportant. They are very important. The bishops explain why right in what was posted:

Life and Dignity of the Human Person
The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching.


And this is consistent with all our teaching. You can not move onto the rest of the list at the expense of the foundation. You can't build with no cornerstone. Christ is the foundation, Christ is God. We are in the image of God and endowed with dignity beyond compare by virtue of that....and that sets the foundation of the right to life, necessary for all others to exist.

So I do agree the whole list needs to be taught....but if someone supports abortion as a choice no matter what and votes to allow it to continue...then they can not move along that list. They have removed the cornerstone. You can't take a hamburger out of the bun and throw it away. Then add mustard and say it is a hamburger with mustard.

So some politicians deserve to be taken to task and challenged for ignoring the whole list. And a vote for them is not justified by their opposition to abortion alone. But a vote is certainly not justified for a politician who supports abortion.

Notice I don't say they like or dislike it personally, that does not enter into it...but they vote to allow it to continue as a matter of choice in a way allows it for convenience or as birth control. If a vote allows it under those conditions, for whatever reasons (baring the rare cases where those that fit with double effect), then there is a massive problem. I really want someone to ask a politician: "If the social problems were eliminated or mitigated should abortion exist as a simple function of choice when someone does not want a baby because it is inconvenient or as birth control?"

As far as communion, it gets denied to a politician (or should according to most logic) if there is remote material co-operation. That is really something that is hard to prove and needs to be dealt with pastorally between the priest and the person.

But the other tenants of social justice, if ignored contribute to abortions, so both ends need to be held liable. Neither should get a pass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D'Ann
Upvote 0

geocajun

Priest of the holy smackrament
Dec 25, 2002
25,479
1,689
✟35,477.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
David, I have a hard time understanding the logic behind applying 'remote material cooperation' in some situations and not others. The whole point of qualifying it as remote is to distinguish the degree of guilt one has for their informal (material) cooperation with the act.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ShannonMcCatholic

I swallowed a bug
Feb 2, 2004
15,792
1,447
✟30,743.00
Faith
Catholic
Geee... thanks for clearing that up. And here i was all confused by conflicting scientific studies into the matter.
I think there will never be conclusive studies, because may people don't really know themselves or their ultimate motivations for things. We'll get reasons like "I wanted a career after spending so much money on college", "I couldn't afford a baby right now", "I want time to pursue my own goals and dreams", "I don't have health insurance"...but that's surface motivation. Those are reasons for regretting being pregnant, not reasons for one to reject adoptioning out or whatever and choosing instead to kill their own child.

I don't thing those things aren't also worth looking at and examining. I think they defintely are!!! However, without a wholistic approach to unintentional pregnancies--things really won't improve all that much.

This is only tangentially related- but there are things wounding women in our country...there is an absolute crisis of sexual abuse and assault in our country. And while most abortions are NOT a direct product of rape or sexual assault, women are left decimated in their sexuality by this abuse. Statistics relate that around 1/4 of women are sexually abused as children and 1/5 of women age 18 and up are raped--and my guess would be that these statistics skew low since other statistics say that 60% of sexual assaults go unreported. The women of our country are set up for self loathing, they are set up to be in a place to kill their oen babies.
 
Upvote 0

D'Ann

Catholic... Faith, Hope and the greatest is LOVE
Oct 28, 2004
40,027
4,130
✟72,336.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I like Archbishop Burke. He is a good and kind servant of Christ.

Regarding abortion, we do need to reach out to women who are hurting and suffering as a society and as a community. Shannon is right in that women are set up to hate themselves in most communities and most societies. We do need to not only share what women shouldn't do, but give them options to help them do what is right for them to do.
 
Upvote 0
E

ElviraRio

Guest
I think there will never be conclusive studies, because may people don't really know themselves or their ultimate motivations for things. We'll get reasons like "I wanted a career after spending so much money on college", "I couldn't afford a baby right now", "I want time to pursue my own goals and dreams", "I don't have health insurance"...but that's surface motivation. Those are reasons for regretting being pregnant, not reasons for one to reject adoptioning out or whatever and choosing instead to kill their own child.

I don't thing those things aren't also worth looking at and examining. I think they defintely are!!! However, without a wholistic approach to unintentional pregnancies--things really won't improve all that much.

This is only tangentially related- but there are things wounding women in our country...there is an absolute crisis of sexual abuse and assault in our country. And while most abortions are NOT a direct product of rape or sexual assault, women are left decimated in their sexuality by this abuse. Statistics relate that around 1/4 of women are sexually abused as children and 1/5 of women age 18 and up are raped--and my guess would be that these statistics skew low since other statistics say that 60% of sexual assaults go unreported. The women of our country are set up for self loathing, they are set up to be in a place to kill their oen babies.
well said, and to quote the bumper sticker wisdom which does apply in this case, women deserve better than abortion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,016
13,034
✟1,073,197.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't believe that hating oneself is the prime reason women have abortions.

But if you go back one step further, I'm with you.

I think that many young women have sex because they believe that their beautiful young spirits are "not enough" to attract or maintain a relationship with a boy in this age where sex is so available and everybody's doing it.

Sixteen year olds prey on thirteen and fourteen year olds, who, flattered that an older boy is interested in them, think they have to act like an "older girl" to keep them.

I could go on and on.....

Adolescence is such a precarious time emotionally, and the pressures to be sexually active are so great.

I believe that many young women would wait if they had their druthers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D'Ann
Upvote 0
E

ElviraRio

Guest
I think that many young women have sex because they believe that their beautiful young spirits are "not enough" to attract or maintain a relationship with a boy in this age where sex is so available and everybody's doing it.

Sixteen year olds prey on thirteen and fourteen year olds, who, flattered that an older boy is interested in them, think they have to act like an "older girl" to keep them.

I could go on and on.....

Adolescence is such a precarious time emotionally, and the pressures to be sexually active are so great.

I believe that many young women would wait if they had their druthers.
You act like it's only young girls having abortions. Silly. Women of all child bearing ages are having abortions. You are still just scratching the surface. Even if the older women having abortions are doing it because they haven't developed/matured emotionally, it's still an issue of self esteem, the root cause being what Shannon described.

having said that, what girls really need is to feel loved and accepted by their fathers. The bistardization of the family and family values in this scumbag society doesn't help, what with the rise of dead beat dads and skyrocketing divorce reates. And they need to be taught and exampled virtue, which goes against what the world teaches them. If they know this, they CAN very well decide not to have sex-- something you act like they're not capable of. It's defeatism such as this which prolly contributes to the problem.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Antigone
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Sometimes these discussions of how women are trained by society to hate themselves and feel they need to have sex or whatever make me uncomfortable. I wouldn't say necessarily that the points are completely without merit, but they seem to paint a picture occasionally, probably completely unintentionally, by implication that men get all the breaks in terms of self-image and human sexuality, and usually leverage their advantage over women. I don't think that's true.

Some of the barriers men face that most women don't these days for starters, is geniune trouble finding women. I don't mean finding a good woman, I just mean find a woman period. Women are often extremely selective (sometimes based on odd criteria) but could, if they wanted, walk into any bar and pick up someone. The same isn't true for most men. That's an inequality, too, that gives women a lot of leverage, which many do use. I know lots of people who have girlfriends or wives that basically control their boyfriends or husbands, and the boyfriends or husbands put up with it because they know the woman could find someone else at anytime at a moments notice and that the man would struggle to do so. Men also seem to have, in many instances, a stronger need for sex and romantic companionship than women (or at least a more constant one), so women have the leverage of being able to wait things out and take more "me time" not dating anyone (or freezing out their spouse, boyfriend) than men could do, with less associated stress than men would experience. And, unlike when men attempt to use some sort of similar leverage and it is considered bad, when women do this it is considered normal and alright (which to me it isn't, in many instances).

The context in which relations and lack of relations between the sexes often unfold these days can be mutually destructive to both parties, and there are unique challenges and advantages to being either sex. I wouldn't underestimate that when we enter into these discussions.

I also know of a lot of men who start out just wanting a wife or a serious girlfriend and are so scarred by women who use and abuse them that eventually they just want casual sex. It isn't always the stereotype of a man that just goes out looking to have sex and the woman who wants to settle down. Usually it's the opposite these days -- the woman likes to leverage herself by moving back and forth between many men (either by not committing to any one person, or by committing and cheating, or a short-term commitment with "friendships" built on the side that immediately transition into a new relationship the second anything goes slightly wrong with the one she's in, or just the understanding that any little thing goes wrong and the woman will "take some time on her own" and dump the man), and the man wants to nest (if not marriage, often at least a very serious committed bond short of that). Women also are more likely to "talk the talk" of commitment without meaning it whereas men might not say as much but mean what they say. Obviously, none of these is universal, but these are real things that my friends and I have often experienced in life -- and I include female friends, who sometimes behave these ways with men, and I basically learn of straight from them (though they categorize their actions differently, of course).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,336
✟788,307.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
David, I have a hard time understanding the logic behind applying 'remote material cooperation' in some situations and not others. The whole point of qualifying it as remote is to distinguish the degree of guilt one has for their informal (material) cooperation with the act.

I think I do need to be clearer on my part (I hate working the 8am shift during intercession). I was saying remote cooperation but in my head I was working on the application of proportionate reasons from case to case. So yeah let me clarify what I mean.

What I should state more clearly is that if we are talking about remote material then what needs to be looked at is proportionate reason. And that is why I am saying it is hard and needs to be looked at on a level that has more knowledge than a simple blanket statement can make.

I suppose I should more properly phrase it that a politician and their priest need to have a relationship where they discuss the these things in the context of the moral weight of the decisions and the reasons for making them. If a politician is voting for a law or against one because they believe the right to choose needs to be protected even if that means abortion as a function of any personal choice...then I think it is a pretty solid reason for a priest to deny the Eucharist.

The problem is that some priests argue that voting for abortion is Immediate material cooperation or even implicit formal cooperation. Some argue that the vote is essential to the performance of the act of abortion so it is immediate material. Some argue that the argument of personally opposed but still voting for other reasons while not intending the action of abortion still constitutes as serious as implicit formal. Some argue it is remote material and proportionate reasons can be applied. Many will disagree. And that is why the whole thing needs to have the priest personally, and not remotely involved. I don't think a blanket statement can be made per se.

I know you know all of the above Geo, but for those not familiar with all this remote, implicit and material stuff. Some examples that I think are generally accepted as illustrations from moral theology.

Things need to be assessed as to, are they:

  • Formal (shares intention to do evil) or Material (Does not share)

  • Immediate (direct) or Mediate (indirect)

  • Remote or Proximate (actual relation in sequence of events or intrinsic connection to the act.)

  • Active (helping to happen) or Passive (allowing to happen)

Formal is always illicit.

Immediate Material is illicit if it takes a human life (depending on double effect considerations)

Mediate Material has factors to consider like proportionate reason

The Vatican gave a good summary in this document (about vaccines made from fetuses) under the section: The principle of licit cooperation in evil

But what is a politician's vote? If it does not share the intention to protect abortion but rather seeks to address some other ill...is it immediate or mediate or proximate or remote. Those things can be debated and I have seen both ends argued.

I think one clear thing is that if a politician is voting with the mindset that they are protecting the right to have an abortion no matter what (even if all social concerns were to be eliminated or mitigated) and for whatever reason is given. And if they are protecting that choice in that vein...then there are some serious moral considerations that need to take place between priest and parishioner.

Because at that point they are sharing the intention to commit an intrinsic evil...and with the legislative power they have then that intention can be argued proximate and not remote and the intention makes it formal and not material. And those are huge differences.

So what I was trying to say was not so much on proving remote material cooperation but the intentions and proportionate reasons that will be a huge factor in the person's spiritual disposition and what kind of cooperation is given.

And that is why I think a broad wholesale and carpet instruction can not be given. Now, if the Church looks at a particular bill and says: "To vote for this would be formal cooperation or at the very least immediate material cooperation without proportionate reasons (say those of double effect) and is a grave attack on life."

That is a different matter. That kind of statement can be made and generally in the cases of specific bills and such you will see bishops comment of supporting it or not.

Now as far as the voter...in this we now have the very interesting issue of "unjust alternative choice". If no one satisfies the moral requirements on different issues and in many ways proportionate reasons can not apply because both choices support different intrinsic evils. That is a pickle. But it is not an "unjust alternative choice" because we can vote third party. Of course, the viability of that option can be debated and some would maintain that it is not viable and is an illusionary option so there is the problem of "unjust alternative choice".

I would not be one of the latter. I would argue that the only think that keeps third party votes not a viable option is people refusing to make them. But that is a different issue. the bottom line here is these and other factors make it almost impossible to say a voters vote places them in a place where they can not have the Eucharist.

Unless, again, they vote desiring to protect the choice to have abortions for simple and direct choice regardless of social factors and simply to protect the right to choose even for convenience. In that case, the intention to aid in furthering an intrinsic evil is pretty clear. But I am not going to say anyone is doing that (politician or voter) until they say it or the direct extension of the logic of their stated reasons make that conclusion inevitable
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: D'Ann
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
2

2Cosmic2Charlie

Guest
I hate to throw a monkey in your wench here Davey but....

What about he moral considerations of representing, in good faith, the consitutancy that elected you to reprent them and the oath you took to do just that as a legislatior ?

Most people in America do not share the views of the people on this board.

If you have a consitutancy that pretty much would like abortion restricted in the third trimester but wants limited available in the second and unlimited available in the first (which is about the view of American's generally) how can you vote on a bill that says that and not get caught in the swtiches.

Further, why, if you actually think this way, should a legislators ethics always fall to the side of his personal conscience ? They are, after all, elected to do our collective bidding, to some extent at least we have a claim on how he should vote and want we want him to do.

To what extent do his oath of office and his the Chruch stands of various issue come into conflict and if the Chuch is unwilling to let a legislator up on issue like this and are willing to threaten him on such a deeply personal level as this to get their way why should ANYONE every vote for a Catholic for public office ?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.