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

[Davidnic]

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 ?

I understand that a representative is elected to do what his/her constituency wants. I think a politician needs to be upfront on what they believe in an election so people know. But if something is intrinsically evil, it is. And it does not matter if people support it. There have been plenty of times in democracy when the majority supported an intrinsic evil and it took politicians to vote against those who elected them. Their choices need to be a balance between personal conscience and will of the people. But no one should ever be made to support an intrinsic evil at the will of a majority. In that choice the conscience, given by God and hopefully properly formed to follow His will, is the final call.

As far as the Church threating, that's not the case. They are simply letting people know how it is. If someone is protecting abortion as a right of choice for convenience or birth control...then it's a sin. And if, after the priest and the person involved discuss it and all relevant factors known to them alone, the person obstinately remains in sin...there are few options. It is not something that can be changed, it is connected to the nature of the Eucharist at the foundation of our Sacramental theology.

I do get how that can complicate voting for a Catholic for some people. A lot of things complicate situations when people are deciding between right and wrong. Not that voting for a Catholic is always right...depends on the person; but I mean yeah, it complicates a transitory part of fallen world. The issue, personally, is not one I will compromise on with my vote because it is bigger to me than the vote.

I don't want to sound impractical or dogmatic, you know I try to take all sides into account. But to be frank Charlie, if someone wants abortion restricted in the third trimester but wants limited available in the second and unlimited available in the first available then they are wrong. And that that is the view of Americans in general is both debatable and I don't think it would be a very popular view if the social factors were mitigated. But I do get your point that it is a common mainstream view. But I think that is because people can come up with justifications for abortions based on social factors that can, and should, be removed by application of the rest of our teaching on social justice.

All of this is the same as supporting unjust wars or state sanctioned murder of any kind. Yes, in abortion we have the foundation right with a moral weight that is greater than many others. But I would say the same for unjust wars, state sanctioned murder, oppression and all of the things I hold as human rights.

But yes, the issues you raise are valid and are of great concern to many. And they are good points. I'm just likely going to disagree with you on the application of our individual logics in this regard. But I see how someone reading all of this would think: "I can't vote for a Catholic if that is the deal." But, that's the deal.

I also hope that if a politician agreed with what I expressed here there would be points for an internal consistency on the ethic of life. And I think that for a great many the type of person who would support it all in that way would gain some support even if the voter knew they would not always represent their constituency. Because they would trust the judgment skills and the ethic.

But likely such a person would not have made it very far in politics. And probably, in many cases, due to the issues you raised

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

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).

Looking at the rest of the animal kingdom- females are the ones who select between the males competing for them. Males are often more beautifully arrayed in order to go through elaborate displays of their genetic superiority.

I am not syaing that guys don't have it rough, but some of it is certainly an imbued characteristic.

I tend to thnk that sexual identity is a very, very messed up part of modern, industiral socities (perhpas all societies...I don't really know) for men and women. I think there is an epidemic of brokeness and woundedness. I also think that there is a large unknown segment of the male population who have been sexually abused. But in America the percentage of women sexually assualted is 4 times as gret as in the next highest nation. That's indicative of something--of what I don't know--but certainly it's an indicator that there is a huge defect in the area of healthy sexual devlopment.

No matter how hard up a guy is for a woman, he still doesn't have the right to have sexual contact with her without her specific consent. And no matter how involved he is, a man isn't going to be in a position to go against his nature to such an extent as to obliterate that which evoltionarily is the summit of what his being is created to do. He is created to inseminate and protect - a woman is created to bear and nurture children (please don't misunderstand and think that I am saying that this is all we do--but rather from an evolutionary stand point).

 

[krstlros]

I would have said something on the subject. But, I'm afraid my point of view will probably mean bupkiss to most people around here, let alone those who are saying whatever it is they are saying.

Besides, the topic of conversation has way slid to something different from what started in the O.P.

 

[Antigone]

I would have said something on the subject. But, I'm afraid my point of view will probably mean bupkiss to most people around here, let alone those who are saying whatever it is they are saying.

Hey, that's never stopped me. The good (and occasionally bad) think about the internet is that everyone has a voice.

 

[Davidnic]

I would have said something on the subject. But, I'm afraid my point of view will probably mean bupkiss to most people around here, let alone those who are saying whatever it is they are saying.

Besides, the topic of conversation has way slid to something different from what started in the O.P.

Your POV means more than bupkiss to me.

 

[2Cosmic2Charlie]

I would have said something on the subject. But, I'm afraid my point of view will probably mean bupkiss to most people around here, let alone those who are saying whatever it is they are saying.

Besides, the topic of conversation has way slid to something different from what started in the O.P.

I thought saying stuff the meant bupkiss to people was the whole point of he internet.

 

[PoliticalGuru]

Looking at the rest of the animal kingdom- females are the ones who select between the males competing for them. Males are often more beautifully arrayed in order to go through elaborate displays of their genetic superiority.

I am not syaing that guys don't have it rough, but some of it is certainly an imbued characteristic.

I tend to thnk that sexual identity is a very, very messed up part of modern, industiral socities (perhpas all societies...I don't really know) for men and women. I think there is an epidemic of brokeness and woundedness. I also think that there is a large unknown segment of the male population who have been sexually abused. But in America the percentage of women sexually assualted is 4 times as gret as in the next highest nation. That's indicative of something--of what I don't know--but certainly it's an indicator that there is a huge defect in the area of healthy sexual devlopment.

No matter how hard up a guy is for a woman, he still doesn't have the right to have sexual contact with her without her specific consent. And no matter how involved he is, a man isn't going to be in a position to go against his nature to such an extent as to obliterate that which evoltionarily is the summit of what his being is created to do. He is created to inseminate and protect - a woman is created to bear and nurture children (please don't misunderstand and think that I am saying that this is all we do--but rather from an evolutionary stand point).

That something I thinkis sin, which has been causing the breakdown of what a normally functioning society should be like from God's viewpoint for decades now, and will either cause our society to self destruct or rebuild.

 

[ElviraRio]

I thought saying stuff the meant bupkiss to people was the whole point of he internet.

+1

 

[Michie]

Catholic Action for Faith and Family (www.catholicaction.org/)
Archbishop Burke, the "Chief Justice" of the Tribunal of the worldwide Catholic Church addresses the worthy reception of the Eucharist and the controversy of unfaithful catholic politicians.

ROMA (Catholic Action for Faith and Family) -

Catholic Action conducted an interview with Archbishop Raymond Burke,the courageous former Archbishop of Saint Louis and Bishop of La Crosse. Pope Benedict XVI thought so highly of the Archbishop that he appointed him the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura on June 27,2008. In effect, he is the Chief Justice of the International tribunal of the Catholic Church.This interview examines the pastoral aspects of Canon 915 and respect for the Holy Eucharist(Editor:

Your Excellency, in today’s world there seems to be a lax attitude regarding the reception of the Holy Eucharist. Why do you think this is and do you feel that this affects the faithful in the way they lead their lives as Catholics?

Continued- http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28987

 

[Fantine]

From Archbishop Burke's interview:

The Bishop or Church authority, it could be the parish priest, who intervenes in such situations, is dealing solely with the good of the soul of the politician or public figure who is involved. This has nothing to do with trying to influence public policy and has to do with the state of the soul of a politician or public official who happens to be Catholic and, therefore is held in the public sphere to follow the divine moral law. If he does not, he should be admonished by his pastor.

So, to try to silence a shepherd from doing what is for the good of the soul of a member of the flock by telling him that it is interfering in politics is simply ridiculous and wrong.

If it has nothing to do with public policy then it should be done privately, by the Catholic politician's pastor or spiritual director, not a bombastic bishop from a different diocese who holds a press conference about it.

And I am sure that there are priests who give spiritual guidance to politicians as it should be given, privately and respectfully.

But Archbishop Burke, given to dramatic press conferences and maximum publicity, had no interest in politicians' souls, and to infer that he had is most definitely a Class A violation of the 8th commandment (aka a whopper.)

 

[Fish and Bread]

Looking at the rest of the animal kingdom- females are the ones who select between the males competing for them. Males are often more beautifully arrayed in order to go through elaborate displays of their genetic superiority.

I am not syaing that guys don't have it rough, but some of it is certainly an imbued characteristic.

I tend to thnk that sexual identity is a very, very messed up part of modern, industiral socities (perhpas all societies...I don't really know) for men and women. I think there is an epidemic of brokeness and woundedness. I also think that there is a large unknown segment of the male population who have been sexually abused. But in America the percentage of women sexually assualted is 4 times as gret as in the next highest nation. That's indicative of something--of what I don't know--but certainly it's an indicator that there is a huge defect in the area of healthy sexual devlopment.

No matter how hard up a guy is for a woman, he still doesn't have the right to have sexual contact with her without her specific consent. And no matter how involved he is, a man isn't going to be in a position to go against his nature to such an extent as to obliterate that which evoltionarily is the summit of what his being is created to do. He is created to inseminate and protect - a woman is created to bear and nurture children (please don't misunderstand and think that I am saying that this is all we do--but rather from an evolutionary stand point).

I agree with you that sexual assaults and rapes are bad things. I would never say or imply otherwise. I've met at least one rape victim, and I understand how traumatic of an event that sort of thing is.

I do think, however, that, since you bring it up, part of the underlying sociology behind the rise in the incidents of male-on-female rape is the increasing sense of powerlessness men feel. I base this first on the fact that psychologists say most rapes are really about power rather sexual lust. When one tries to assert power in a base way, whether it be through rape or picking a fist fight or whatever one may be doing, it's usually because you feel insecure about your power or you feel you don't have any power. And that brings us to what we were talking about before we started discussing sexual misconduct -- that there is a growing "power gap" in the world of romance and sexuality that favors women.

Increasingly, women have on their own accord those things that they in former times used to need a husband for. Overall, this is a good thing, because freedom is a good thing, and by recognizing freedoms, we uphold the inherent value and dignity of life (Which I consider a secular value as well as a religious one -- it's one I wish we could all share). However, there are a few societal imbalances that can result. For example, where before a man might feel he needs a woman primarily for companionship, sex, and child-rearing and the women in turn might feel she needs a man primarily for companionship, protection, and financial security; now the man needs all three things and the woman, only companionship. When all a woman needs is companionship, she can look to simply friends for that, or a wide array of different men, and can raise her children on her own and provide for herself. However, the man still needs the woman just as much as he always has.

Consequently, the generic woman finds herself in extremely high demand and the generic man finds himself as an interchangeable part who can be replaced with someone else or no one at all fairly easily relative to the past. This imbalance is actually a large part of why, in my view, the traditional family is so much less common these days than in prior times and there is so much divorce and so forth. One of the reasons why Arab kings used to have harems is because they had such great amounts of power relative to women -- he didn't have to stick to one woman. Today, women have a great amount of power relative to men, and they don't have to stick to just one man (Though for cultural reasons, it's often what's known as serial monogamy rather than actual polygamy). There's not much inherent incentive for women to marry, be faithful in marriage, treat her spouse equally, and to stay married for life anymore, especially through the rough times that any relationship of any sort will almost always go through.

I don't think we ought to correct this issue by going back to the past, but I do think something should be done to try to level out the power differential between sexes and recreate for both sexes the sense that they need each other and it is not to their advantage to delay or skip marriage, act unfaithfully in marriage, or to end their marriages. This can't be done just with talk, it has to be done at the policy level. The problem is, there is no obvious things that can be done. I'm not sure this is a problem that can be fixed.

One thing that may actually help is technology, eventually. As horrible as it may sound in some ways, when we get to the point, if we ever get to the point, where average people can have androids as life companions, that is going to level things by creating competition for men. I think almost every man would rather have a real woman, all things being equal, but men who can't get women or are treated in emotionally abusive ways may wind up trying that alternative, and then instantly that gives them the same leverage over women that women now have over men, and that could even things out. However, we don't live in the far-future, so that won't be helping the situation anytime soon.

 

[Davidnic]

I thought saying stuff the meant bupkiss to people was the whole point of he internet.

One of my favorites:

 

[krstlros]

Okay, this is my feelings on the whole "Denial of Communion" push.

In my opinion, no one should be denied the Body of Christ, if the person so desires to receive it. No matter how they feel about certain issues, or their general lifestyle. The Body and Blood of Christ is sacred, given as a gift by our Savior, Jesus Christ. A gift freely given which shouldn't be taken away from anyone who truly believes that the consecrated bread and wine is truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

In receiving the Sacred Species, the person receives Grace from Heaven, which can affect the soul of the person receiving it, there by changing their point of view. Change their way of life.

How can one deny God's grace to someone?

Yes, politicians are held up to higher standard. Then again, shouldn't we all, as followers of Christ and children of God, hold ourselves to a higher standard? I know, I can hear people saying, "These are public figures." And yet, people see us. People observes our behavior and actions. How can we point fingers, when we ourselves are not living up to what God expects of us?

"For the rod by which you judge, you shall also be judged."

 

[Zoness]

Okay, this is my feelings on the whole "Denial of Communion" push.

In my opinion, no one should be denied the Body of Christ, if the person so desires to receive it. No matter how they feel about certain issues, or their general lifestyle. The Body and Blood of Christ is sacred, given as a gift by our Savior, Jesus Christ. A gift freely given which shouldn't be taken away from anyone who truly believes that the consecrated bread and wine is truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

In receiving the Sacred Species, the person receives Grace from Heaven, which can affect the soul of the person receiving it, there by changing their point of view. Change their way of life.

How can one deny God's grace to someone?

Yes, politicians are held up to higher standard. Then again, shouldn't we all, as followers of Christ and children of God, hold ourselves to a higher standard? I know, I can hear people saying, "These are public figures." And yet, people see us. People observes our behavior and actions. How can we point fingers, when we ourselves are not living up to what God expects of us?

"For the rod by which you judge, you shall also be judged."

Said it all for me

What mortal has the right to deny people the right to receive Christ? There way too much politics in this anymore.

 

[holyorders]

1 Corinthians 11:

27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.



The Church takes this passage seriously. I think we should too.

 

[krstlros]

Then I hope you are ready to step up yourself and be publicly scrutinised.

 

[holyorders]

Then I hope you are ready to step up yourself and be publicly scrutinised.

Its not personal. It is the truth from the Word of God.


I can attest even to myself that in times past I had recieved Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin. I was ill for awhile. God does mind this very much.

 

[JoabAnias]

Okay, this is my feelings on the whole "Denial of Communion" push.

In my opinion, no one should be denied the Body of Christ, if the person so desires to receive it. No matter how they feel about certain issues, or their general lifestyle. The Body and Blood of Christ is sacred, given as a gift by our Savior, Jesus Christ. A gift freely given which shouldn't be taken away from anyone who truly believes that the consecrated bread and wine is truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

In receiving the Sacred Species, the person receives Grace from Heaven, which can affect the soul of the person receiving it, there by changing their point of view. Change their way of life.

How can one deny God's grace to someone?

Yes, politicians are held up to higher standard. Then again, shouldn't we all, as followers of Christ and children of God, hold ourselves to a higher standard? I know, I can hear people saying, "These are public figures." And yet, people see us. People observes our behavior and actions. How can we point fingers, when we ourselves are not living up to what God expects of us?

"For the rod by which you judge, you shall also be judged."

I understand your position but wouldn't that also allow absolutely anyone to receive communion? Even those who publically teach heresy?

Though I welcome all, I must differ to the Church on this matter as to what is required for communion with Jesus and can find no fault in that criteria as the Church sets forth.

I feel the issue of culture of death is of paramount importance therefore this statement may need to be made.

Here is a bit of an exegesis to wrangle with;

Matt. 28, 19-20: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost . . . lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

Matt. 16-18: . . . and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If we believe this then we much follow the Church and accept the full explicit meaning she puts forth.

The Bible teaches that Christ ascribed to his Church qualities and gave to it the names that proved it to be a visible organization with visible unity among its followers.

Romans 12-5: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Eph. 4-3 to 5-3: Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4. There is ONE BODY, AND ONE SPIRIT even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. 5. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc.

John 10-16: And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Rom. 12, 4-5: For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, etc.

John 17-21: That they may be one, as thou Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that (as a consequence) the world may believe that Thou hast sent me.

In many places of scripture, Christ's Church is compared to a house, a body, a city built on a mountain, a sheepfold, etc.; but these are all visible things. Hence Christ's Church besides being one spirit is also "One Body." The Catholic Church alone has this two-fold unity. The "invisible" theory, religious indifference, syncretism etc is therefore false on the face of it.

The Bible teaches that those who reject willingly (meaning freely) the true faith are to be classified with heretics and lost souls. I know that sounds harsh yet scripture minces no words about it.

Titus 3-10: A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.

Gal. 1-8: But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal. 1-9: As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which ye have received let him be accursed.

Rom. 16-17: Now I beseech you brethren mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

2 John 10: If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.

Therefore according to the Bible, one religion is not as good as the other or one who openly personifies the culture of death (after determining if they do so freely, willingly and making every attempt by two or more to correct them) then they should be rejected or as its said, vomited out of the mouth of God for their iniquities.

I realize it is not our job as laity to judge these things but I must believe that it is up to the Church. Especially when it comes to ones sanctity and or the homage deserved to the Lord in His body and blood in the Eucharist.

St. Paul states in another instance that He must give the obstinate over to Satan to be sifted. Heart wrenching I know, I wish it did not have to be so either but the Church would be remiss to condone something that leads the flock astray.

Gospa pray for us.

 

[krstlros]

Through the Eucharist, God's grace enters the person body and soul. Through that grace, God's work can be done. It can change a person.

How can we deny that grace? The chance for God to change a person?

You can quote scripture til the end of time, and given time I'm sure I could find passages to support my own argument. The point being the Eucharist can change people. I have seen it. Not as instantanious as we would possible like. The fact remains, the Eucharist changes people.

Christ gave us the Eucharist out of love. How can we deny that love, joy and hope that the Eucharist offers?

 

[JoabAnias]

Christ gave us the Eucharist out of love. How can we deny that love, joy and hope that the Eucharist offers?

We can't. Its doing exactly that Love by protecting the Eucharist in some rare instances which the Church alone can judge. I think the Church would be remiss if she didn't. Its the duty of the Bishop to guide and admonish for the sake of the kingdom. Not just for sake of the individual (though all possible should be done not to separate a wayward brother as Paul did) but also of the body. If the body is threatened then the good of the individual does not take precedence. I believe this is the biblical stance as well. All that said, I believe for the most part the Church needn't take any action as the lukewarm and negligent will most likely vomit themselves out eventually, and I have done so personally so can relate but we're not all like that. We have those who would remain rotten in the barrel and spoil the rest, its then up to the Church what measures need to be taken to correct that. I take notice when a Bishop makes a statement such as this in the OP. Its a grave indicator and an admirable stance in the fight against the culture of death. I seriously believe it had to be considered at length and in depth for its efficacy to get those publicly supporting death to take notice as well before even being made. Obviously receiving communion is not in itself having the desired effect though I too wish nothing but mercy on those holding to public dissent. Many receive unworthily and it may be more merciful to prevent that if it leads others astray as well then to allow them to continue to bring judgement upon themselves. I admit that level of discernment is beyond me and so I defer to the Church and trust in her wisdom while at the same time sharing in Jesus sentiment that all be one while not forgetting that some do in fact choose to stand against the Church for the greatest atrocity of child abuse known to mankind even while proclaiming unity with her by receiving communion. A wake up call may be what they need.

Peace sister. (Sry to sound disagreeable, I don't mean to be, just have spent many years struggling with this same question in light of heresy and dissent and this happens to be where I am at at present. Nothing personal).