Pelosi receives Communion in Vatican despite abortion stance

[Green Sun]

It has nothing to do with her party but formally cooperating with grave evil as a supposedly devout Catholic and promotion of that grave evil. The bishops consider it a merciful act to withdraw communion for the good of her eternal soul.

I would hope that the archbishop revokes communion for those in government that support the death penalty, in violation of the Church's teaching, then.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

She didn't commit a sin, so I see no reason why the archbishop should have proper cause to prevent her from receiving communion.

I get that people here view her as a political enemy, it seems pointlessly incendiary and not based on the teachings of the Church to claim she should be denied a core part of mass when no mortal sin was committed.

She supports the unlimited right to kill of babies in the womb. How is that not a sin?

 

[Michie]

I would hope that the archbishop revokes communion for those in government that support the death penalty, in violation of the Church's teaching, then.

I disagree with the death penalty as well but that’s not a formal teaching according to my catechism yet.

 

[Green Sun]

I disagree with the death penalty as well but that’s not a formal teaching according to my catechism yet.

It has explicitly been part of the catechism of the Catholic Church since 2018.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html

The Supreme Pontiff Francis, in the audience granted on 11 May 2018 to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has approved the following new draft of no. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, arranging for it to be translated into various languages and inserted in all the editions of the aforementioned Catechism.

The death penalty

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

 

[pdudgeon]

The Church has shown compassion and patience and continues to do so. Is it compassionate to let her heap condemnation on herself as she unrepentantly partakes of the Eucharist? Is that compassionate? Should we hide our light? Allow our beliefs to be trampled on the streets of the world like so much worthless salt?

Why have confession at all then? Why not open communion to all? That’s not the way it works. Mary Magdalene was repentant and followed the Lord’s teachings. Jesus asked all those in sin to repent and follow Him. Stumbling is one thing. Obstinate disobedience of something you claim to follow is outright disingenuous. Not to mention the false witness it shows to the world.

By condoning this, you yourself, are going against the teachings of the Church.

There were followers of Christ that could not accept His teaching at the Last Supper and walked away.

When you put it in this manner, it sounds simple indeed.
In real life it is anything but simple.
Consider that for Pelosi it would mean vacating her seat, leaving office, closing her office, dismissing all her staff, leaving Washington, loss of her job and pay, and no future in politics or anything else.
And probably a loss of close friends too.
Unless you have experienced personally a loss of access to the Eucharist, it's impossible to imagine the difference. And yet that is the Church's recommendation, and the people agree.

 

[Michie]

It has explicitly been part of the catechism of the Catholic Church since 2018.

New revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty – Rescriptum “ex Audentia SS.mi”

Thanks for enlightening me. Last time it was discussed in class though, there are exemptions to the rule. Not so with abortion and I do not see anyone stumping for it like Pelosi and others do with abortion.

 

[Michie]

When you put it in this manner, it sounds simple indeed.
In real life it is anything but simple.
Consider that for Pelosi it would mean vacating her seat, leaving office, closing her office, dismissing all her staff, leaving Washington, loss of her job and pay, and no future in politics or anything else.
And probably a loss of close friends too.
Unless you have experienced personally a loss of access to the Eucharist, it's impossible to imagine the difference. And yet that is the Church's recommendation, and the people agree.

Again, you are completely ignoring the teachings of the faith you claim to follow. If you consider the church the fullness and faith and truth then why are you against what she teaches?

 

[Green Sun]

Thanks for enlightening me. Last time it was discussed in class though, there are exemptions to the rule. Not so with abortion and I do not see anyone stumping for it like Pelosi and other do with abortion.

Currently, the wording does not allow for exemptions to the death penalty, unlike the previous rulings. This is one of the things I find bishops and church leadership in the states as not truthfully communicating the catechism. There was a lot of pushback to the changes from the United States, and I've been worried for a long while that conservative tendencies to support the death penalty is having priests and bishops knowingly defending something that the church finds as inadmissible.

I would rather they be consistent, and if they are pro-life, to be pro-life in all manners, including the death penalty.

 

[Michie]

Currently, the wording does not allow for exemptions to the death penalty, unlike the previous rulings. This is one of the things I find bishops and church leadership in the states as not truthfully communicating the catechism. There was a lot of pushback to the changes from the United States, and I've been worried for a long while that conservative tendencies to support the death penalty is having priests and bishops knowingly defending something that the church finds as inadmissible.

I would rather they be consistent, and if they are pro-life, to be pro-life in all manners, including the death penalty.

I have never seen one single member of clergy defend the death penalty. But the revision of the death penalty is not an infallible document.

 

[Green Sun]

I have never seen one single member of clergy defend the death penalty.

Unfortunately, it's something I've seen far too commonly in my experience at various churches throughout the moves of my life.

Regardless, if the Archbishop views the support of abortion to result in a denial of the Eucharist, I hope he'd view support for the death penalty the same way.

 

[Michie]

*Permission to post in full*


On August 1, Cardinal Luis Ladaria issued a letter to the bishops of the world announcing that Pope Francis had approved a change to the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church dealing with the death penalty.

Here are some key facts for understanding this revision . . .

What does the Catechism now say?

The relevant passage now reads:

2267 Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” (Francis, Discourse, Oct. 11, 2017), and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

For a history of what the Catechism formerly said, see here.

Is this revision a surprise?

Not really. The last several popes—St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis—have taken a negative tone toward the death penalty, and the Catechismhad already been revised once to reflect this. In addition, Cardinal Ladaria explains:

The Holy Father Pope Francis, in his Discourse on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the apostolic constitution Fidei Depositum, by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church, asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development of the doctrine on this point that has taken place in recent times (1).

We thus already knew that a revision was under consideration.

Is this new revision an exercise of papal infallibility?

No. Although many individual teachings in the Catechism have previously been taught infallibly, the Catechism itself is not an infallible document. This is one reason it is capable of being revised.

To understand the level of authority of an individual teaching, one must look at the circumstances of an individual act of teaching to determine what level of authority it has.

As Cardinal Ladaria explains in his letter, Pope Francis approved the new revision that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) proposed, but he did not issue it in a document of his own. This is significant for two reasons:

1. Popes cannot delegate their infallibility to departments of the Roman Curia, such as the CDF. Consequently, the approval that popes regularly give to CDF documents does not make them infallible.
2. To issue an infallible teaching, popes use a special form of language, typically invoking their authority as the successor of Peter and using the phrase I/we define as a way of indicating that the teaching is definitive. (See, for example, the language Pius XII used in defining the Assumption of Mary in Munificentissimus Deus 44.) Pope Francis did not use this kind of language in granting the approval of the new revision.

What level of authority does the new revision have?

According to Cardinal Ladaria:

The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine (7).

As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching.

According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful.

What if I have trouble accepting this teaching?

The Church recognizes that individuals can have difficulties accepting non-definitive Church teaching and that, in some cases, they may find themselves unable to accept them.

This situation is addressed—with specific application to theologians—in a 1990 instruction from the CDF known as Donum Veritatis, which states:

Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him (28-29).

Donum Veritatis further states:

It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question (31).

Of course, having a private disagreement does not entail a right to publicly oppose Church teaching. Fortunately, those experiencing such difficulties can have the consolation that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church “into all the truth” (John 16:13).

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail (31).

Does the new revision indicate that the death penalty is intrinsically evil?

One might think so, since it says the death penalty is “inadmissible” because “it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” However, a careful reading of the revision, and Cardinal Ladaria’s letter, suggests this is not the way the phrase should be understood. (Msgr. Charles Pope reaches the same conclusion.)

First, the revision notes that “a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.” This refers to the fact that in the past the state’s penal sanctions were understood principally as administering justice (including divine justice) to wrongdoers, but today the Church understands them principally as seeking to protect society and (hopefully) rehabilitate the offender (see Ladaria 7 and the changes made to paragraph 2266 in the Catechism).

Second, in light of this new understanding of the function of the state’s penal sanctions, the death penalty could still be justified as a means of protecting society.

However, according to the revision, “more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.”

From these considerations, one could understand the death penalty as something that involves “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” but an attack that could be tolerated or even required in situations where there is no other way to effectively protect society.

This understanding appears to be confirmed by Cardinal Ladaria, who seems prepared to acknowledge that “the political and social situation of the past made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good” (2).

He further seems prepared to acknowledge that, as in the previous edition of the Catechism, “it can be justified if it is ‘the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor’” (3). He states that “given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people,” though, “certainly, it remains the duty of public authorities to defend the life of citizens” (7). He thus concludes:

All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium. These teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime (8).

The new revision would be “in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium” if it held that the death penalty was intrinsically evil and thus had always been wrong in the past. Instead, Cardinal Ladaria indicates that the revision is warranted by the changed understanding of the state’s penal sanctions and the development of more effective detention systems.

If the death penalty is not being judged intrinsically evil, what has changed?

It appears that Pope Francis has made a prudential judgment that, given present circumstances in society, there are no longer situations in which the death penalty is warranted.

Consequently, this judgment has been added to the social doctrine of the Church, which applies the underlying principles of its moral doctrine to concrete situations in society. The underlying moral principles have not changed, but, in Pope Francis’s judgment, society has changed in a way that requires a different application of them.

This judgment is now reflected in the Church’s social doctrine, without contradicting prior teaching on the underlying moral principles. Thus Cardinal Ladaria says that the new formulation “expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.” It is the Church’s social doctrine that has developed, and its prior moral teachings have not been contradicted.

Understanding the Catechism Revision on the Death Penalty

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Currently, the wording does not allow for exemptions to the death penalty, unlike the previous rulings. This is one of the things I find bishops and church leadership in the states as not truthfully communicating the catechism. There was a lot of pushback to the changes from the United States, and I've been worried for a long while that conservative tendencies to support the death penalty is having priests and bishops knowingly defending something that the church finds as inadmissible.

I would rather they be consistent, and if they are pro-life, to be pro-life in all manners, including the death penalty.

I've always wondered why pro-abortion advocates think the life of a child in the womb is worth less than the life of someone like Brenton Tarrent. The latter under all circumstances should not be killed by the state for his crimes but if the former is going to present a future burden it can be killed without any problem, remorse and at tax payer expense (ideally).

Are the unborn literally worth less than Brenton Tarrent?

 

[Green Sun]

Thank you, Michie, for sharing the post. It's a very good writeup!

It gives a great overview of the change, but alas I do feel however I feel like the article dones some uncomfortable logical leaps in that last second to last section to try an defend the death penalty, where from the readings of the text, and the discussions I've had with the priest at my current parish, the church's stance on it is pretty clear as being unacceptable now.

From these considerations, one could understand the death penalty as something that involves “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” but an attack that could be tolerated or even required in situations where there is no other way to effectively protect society.

I really don't see how they get this out of the update to the Catechism, frankly. The last revision was the one that made these exceptions, whereas the current version makes no exception.

I've always wondered why pro-abortion advocates think the life of a child in the womb is worth less than the life of someone like Brenton Tarrent. The latter under all circumstances should not be killed by the state for his crimes but if the former is going to present a future burden it can be killed without any problem, remorse and at tax payer expense (ideally).

Are the unborn literally worth less than Brenton Tarrent?

They aren't worth less - Everyone's life is worthwhile, at least to me. I don't think it's anyone's place to kill a person, whether they've committed a crime or not. No one's life is a burden.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

They aren't worth less - Everyone's life is worthwhile, at least to me. I don't think it's anyone's place to kill a person, whether they've committed a crime or not. No one's life is a burden.

They literally are according to the pro-abortion crowd. They would insist that Brenton Tarrent's life is inviolable and no one may terminate it under any circumstance. On the other hand they would say a woman has the ability to terminate without question or limit, the baby in the womb.

 

[Green Sun]

They literally are according to the pro-abortion crowd. They would insist that Brenton Tarrent's life is inviolable and no one may terminate it under any circumstance. On the other hand they would say a woman has the ability to terminate without question or limit, the baby in the womb.

For clarity, I'm saying that the Catholic Church views the death penalty as inadmissible, and I would hope that an archbishop would be willing to condemn that alongside abortion.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

For clarity, I'm saying that the Catholic Church views the death penalty as inadmissible, and I would hope that an archbishop would be willing to condemn that alongside abortion.

Except the idea that Catholicism in total is against the death penalty is rather modern. For most history, since Saint Paul, Catholics accepted the legitimacy of the death penalty. Kings and even Popes executed people. Abortion in contrast has never been accepted until fairly recently and was objected to as early as the second century in the Didache.

I would say a Catholic prelate would be quite justified in being for the death penalty theologically and historically even if he goes against the Catechism. But that's just my judgement from the issue historically.

 

[Green Sun]

Except the idea that Catholicism in total is against the death penalty is rather modern. For most history, since Saint Paul, Catholics accepted the legitimacy of the death penalty. Kings and even Popes executed people. Abortion in contrast has never been accepted until fairly recently and was objected to as early as the second century in the Didache.

I would say a Catholic prelate would be quite justified in being for the death penalty theologically and historically even if he goes against the Catechism. But that's just my judgement from the issue historically.

I appreciate the honest opinion.
At the very least, I wish that Catholics that support the death penalty would at least acknowledge and accept that their view differs from the view of the Church, rather than twisting the Church's words into supporting their view that the death penalty is viewed as acceptable in our modern world.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I appreciate the honest opinion.
At the very least, I wish that Catholics that support the death penalty would at least acknowledge and accept that their view differs from the view of the Church, rather than twisting the Church's words into supporting their view that the death penalty is viewed as acceptable in our modern world.

I suppose it differs from the current Catholic Church's understanding, but when compared to the Catholic Church in antiquity and throughout most of it's existence it's fairly consistent. It's not as if the pro-lifers have changed their position on abortion to be in line with modern perspectives. Rather it's the pro-abortion Catholics who have changed their views away from the historic Catholic perspective to be against the death penalty and for an unlimited right to abortion. The latter being very modern positions.

 

[Green Sun]

I suppose it differs from the current Catholic Church's understanding, but when compared to the Catholic Church in antiquity and throughout most of it's existence it's fairly consistent. It's not as if the pro-lifers have changed their position on abortion to be in line with modern perspectives. Rather it's the pro-abortion Catholics who have changed their views away from the historic Catholic perspective to be against the death penalty and for an unlimited right to abortion. The latter being very modern positions.

Again, we can try to justify keeping the death penalty by appealing to the historical Church - It doesn't change the Church's teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible. At the end of the day the Catechism is the summation of the Church's beliefs, and that's that.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Again, we can try to justify keeping the death penalty by appealing to the historical Church - It doesn't change the Church's teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible. At the end of the day the Catechism is the summation of the Church's beliefs, and that's that.

I guess an appeal to authority works for some but the consistent teaching of Christianity from the beginning seems to me to weigh more on the side of the Trad/Conservative Caths on this issue. If the Catechism could be changed to be against the death penalty, in contrast to the Apostle Paul, Saintly Kings and even Popes, I would dare say that part of the Catechism could be changed again to reflect the historic Catholic standard. Which then would be more legitimate?

Thus I don't see why this makes any Bishop hypocritical if they support the death penalty. Yes technically in violation of Church teaching, but it's rather weak if you want to enforce it and insist all Catholic clergy be against the death penalty if they are against abortion.