|
||
 Email this article  Discuss this article Other Articles by John-Henry Westen and Hilary White Printer Friendly Version |
||
| For Rome it is Very Clear - Pro-Abortion Politicians 'Must' be Denied Communion | ||
Recent Articles:
>>See more Politics articles
Politics
Important Supreme Court Decision Rejects UN High Court over US Treaty Obligations
Federal Judge Dismisses ACLU's Lawsuit Against Baptist Home
Poland Ratifies Lisbon Treaty with Opt-Out from EU Human Rights Charter
Hillary Clinton is Right: Bush should Boycott Olympics
>>See more Politics articles
April 4, 2008
Some Catholic Bishops in North America seem to be on a different page from the Vatican when it comes to reception of Communion for Catholic politicians who support abortion. Since the controversy came to a head in the 2004 US federal election, most Catholic bishops in the US have either remained silent on the issue, or have made softer statements than the authoritative word from Rome: a word that has been re-affirmed many times and continues to be reasserted regularly.
Most recently, Francis Cardinal Arinze, speaking at a Catholic family conference in Ohio last November, referred to a letter on the subject sent by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who said that such politicians "must" be "refused" Communion.
Video footage, posted recently by the conference organisers and made available on YouTube, shows Cardinal Arinze, the head of Vatican office of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, replying to the question of pro-abortion politicians and the inaction of their bishops. He said "You may have heard about the letter which the present Holy Father, as prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, sent to American bishops on that issue, so the matter is very clear."
He told those in attendance that the question is not one of Church teaching, but of the immutable divine law of God. "It isn't just that they [the politicians in question] have gone against church teaching, but they have gone against divine law; thou shalt not kill."
But since the insistence of Rome has failed to induce positive action from most bishops in the North American hierarchy and abroad, reporters continue to ask the same questions.
Romans in the know, however, repeat that the Pope's letter on the matter has solved the issue. LifeSiteNews.com spoke last month about the issue with Msgr. Andrew R. Baker a professor at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (the Angelicum) in Rome, one of Rome's major historic institutions.
Professor Baker told LifeSiteNews.com, "Certainly you'd have to apply that famous canon of 915 that says one who persists in manifest grave sin should not be admitted to Holy Communion."
"And I think the possibility of looking at the moral principles outlined in the letter attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger that came a number of years ago - those are good moral principles to apply that canon 915."
Professor Baker's opinion is a repetition of that given in Ohio by Cardinal Arinze, who told conferees that he agrees action ought to be taken against bishops who refuse to enforce Canon 915.
Arinze elicited much laughter and applause when he made the analogy, "To the person who says, 'Personally I'm against abortion, but if people what to do it, I'll leave them free', you could say, 'You are a member of the senate or the congress, personally I'm not in favour of shooting the whole lot of you, but if somebody else wants to shoot all of you in the Senate, or all of you in Congress, it's just pro-choice for that person, but personally, I'm not in favour.'
"That is what he is saying. He's saying he's personally not in favour of killing these millions of children in the womb, but if others want to do it, that's pro-choice. That's what he is saying.
"And then you ask, what does the Holy See do? Why doesn't the Pope send 12 Swiss Guards to arrest them all?"
Arinze said that he is regularly asked if a person who votes for abortion can receive Holy Communion. He replies, "Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that?
"Get the children for first Communion and say to them, 'Somebody votes for the killing of unborn babies, and says, I voted for that, I will vote for that every time.' And these babies are killed not one or two, but in millions, and that person says, 'I'm a practising Catholic', should that person receive Communion next Sunday? The children will answer that at the drop of a hat. You don't need a cardinal to answer that."
Any child knows that abortion is grave and evil, because they are not that far removed from the very Breathe of the Giver of Life. It is their very innocence that makes them wise. Many children must think about abortion: "There but for the grace of God, go I."
We have two First Communicants in our family this spring. When inquiring of them what does "thou shall not kill" mean, they replied, "Sometimes when a Mommy has a baby in her tummy and she doesn't want the baby, she kills it." What fear that thought must instill in their young minds.
"Do not try to please everybody. Try to please God , the angels, and the saints. These are your public. If you are afraid of other people's opinion, you should not have become Christian." St John Vianney
Submitted by bambushka on Sat, 04/05/2008 - 7:48am.
My money was on Arinze' for Pope before Pope Benedict was chosen - oh well - maybe next time - AndyP/Doria2 - Yonkers, NY
Submitted by Doria2 on Sat, 04/05/2008 - 2:45pm.
I'm with you, Andy/Doria. I love B XVI, but would Arinze have been a prize?!
As for Cardinal Arinze: Yes, Excellency, I do think "12 Swiss Guards" would be in order. I, for one, would strew flowers in their path.
Submitted by Cooky642 on Sat, 04/05/2008 - 8:20pm.
It is shameful when secular-humanist or communist politicians deny that the pre-born babies are truly alive, but it is a double scandal if such a politician claims he is a "good Catholic" - or a Christian. It is a triple scandal if their Bishop doesn't point out their error and instruct them not to receive Holy Communion (sacreligiously).
I am personally shocked that so many "Catholics" vote to keep these people in office in spite of their support for murder of the unborn as well as the helpless elderly and infirm. It is unbelievable that there are those who can't see that the baby is alive, and that the partial-birth procedure is simply murder. What part of "You shall not kill" do they not understand???
Submitted by Grace Harman on Sun, 04/06/2008 - 11:13am.
Grace, I don't think the problem is that they don't "understand" it; I think the problem is that they don't believe it! I'm sure there are some who would howl if it was their baby or their old/infirm, but somebody else's is just a "problem" to make "go away".
On the other hand, I think that most of them are so blinded, so sold-out, that they would gladly submit their own to these horrible "solutions". Those are the ones who scare me. There's nothing to say to them to get them to accept the truth. Only God can change them, and we know from Scripture that there are some who have put themselves outside even His reach.
Submitted by Cooky642 on Sun, 04/06/2008 - 7:03pm.
If we are going to deny communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, what about those who support a family cap as part of welfare reform, a provision where if a woman on welfare has more children, her welfare payments do not increase? Also, what about those who support denying welfare to minors who bear children out of wedlock? Even if such Catholic politicians are not denied communion, they certainly need to be barred from any kind of Catholic honors. Such provisions will tempt the woman to abort the baby, and are therefore pro‑abortion. I must consider any attempt whatsoever to penalize and stigmatize unmarried pregnancies and childbirths to be pro‑abortion. The sin here is in the sexual activity, not the pregnancy or childbirth as such.
I find pro-life silence on the question of family caps in welfare reform policies extremely hard to understand. The question of family caps in welfare reform policies would seem to disqualify most conservative Republicans from being pro-life, including President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain. In other words, the Republican Party is no longer a viable pro-life option either, and has not been for over a decade. On September 13, 1995, Senator John McCain voted to require that states have family caps in their welfare policies, and to require that states deny support for minors who bear children out of wedlock. Those two votes, along with his support for embryonic stem-cell research must definitively disqualify him from being pro-life. The fact that they were requirements makes them all the more clearly pro-abortion.
The abortion issue ought to make it clear that the problem of unmarried sexual activity will have to be solved by some other means besides punishing the woman after she is pregnant. The fact that a pregnancy is out of wedlock is absolutely no excuse for abortion.
When it comes to out-of-wedlock pregnancies and childbirths, avoiding the further sin of abortion simply MUST have priority over punishing any prior sexual sins. Catholic moral teaching makes it clear that contraception is also an absolutely immoral means of reducing the number of babies born out of wedlock.
At the very least, child and dependent tax breaks for the middle class need to be made available to welfare recipients in return. The simplest way to do that would be to convert the dependency exemption from a tax deduction into a 100%‑refundable tax credit, and to make the child tax credit 100%‑refundable.
Indeed, all tax breaks for children and dependents need to be made 100%‑refundable tax credits. That way, even those who earn too little income to owe any income tax, including welfare recipients, would still get the full benefits of these tax breaks. These benefits MUST be made available even to those who are not working.
Submitted by blue8064 on Sun, 04/06/2008 - 9:15pm.
blue8064, I think there can be legitimate difference of opinion on what is the right amount, if any, should a person be entitled to receive from the government without being in favor of abortion. Welfare caps are not the problem, legal abortion is.
Submitted by GaryT on Sun, 04/06/2008 - 11:07pm.
GaryT,
You are right. Think of it this way. My husband's salary does not increase just because I have another child. We make do with what we have. Why should we give more money to welfare recipients just because they had another child? They can learn restraint and/or frugality too.
Submitted by gerimom on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 2:01pm.
Cardinal Arinze is absolutely correct; any child knows whether an unrestricted abortion advocate should absolutely be denied the Eucharist.