Cardinal Pell to Pro-Abortion Politicians: "How come you feel [you can] to go to Communion?"

Life Site news ^ | May 19, 2006 | John Jalsevac

[topher]

Home | Previous Page | Source URL: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06051901.html LifeSiteNews.com Friday May 19, 2006 Cardinal Pell to Pro-Abortion Politicians: "How come you feel that you're able to go to Communion?" By John Jalsevac FRONT ROYAL, VA, May 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Australia's Cardinal George Pell, was in Front Royal, Virginia over the weekend celebrating Mass and giving the Commencement address at Christendom College.  LifeSiteNews.com interviewed the Australian Church leader at the college last Friday.  This is the second part of that three-part interview. Cardinal Pell: " . . . I mean, we believe that Christ is the Son of God and I believe that if we follow what he says, either popular or unpopular, you're much more likely to be blessed than if you set out to tailor His message-cut bits out of it or improve other bits. The Good Lord has made his instructions." LifeSiteNews.com: Speaking of cutting out teachings from Catholic teachings. There has been a recent problem of Catholic politicians and world leaders, or at least so-called Catholic politicians, who publicly claim that they are faithful Catholics, clearly directly contradicting the faith. What would you say to those politicians, and what can we as lay people do about these? Cardinal Pell: "Well, I think as lay people…my job as Archbishop is significantly different, and you've got to be a little careful there, not to appear to be just simply politically partisan. But if they're very significant issues, I think the lay people should tell the politicians that they're disappointed, and do it regularly, consistently and reasonably, not with hostility or a lack of charity." LifeSiteNews.com: What would you say to the politicians themselves who are doing or saying these things? Cardinal Pell: "Well, I'd say if they do it on a number of really significant issues, you'd have to bring into question just to what extent they are straight up and down the line Catholics, and to what extent they remain Catholic. I mean, if they call themselves Catholics and on every significant public issue they don't line up with us, well at the very minimum I think they should go quiet on the Catholic labelling. "I mean there are other questions about whether or not they should be refused Communion, and they are difficult questions. I think if a person is regularly supporting pro-abortion legislation in a way that is very, very difficult to divorce that voting from an explicitly pro-abortion attitude I think you should ask them, how come you feel that you're able to go to Communion?" The first part of the interview can be viewed here: Cardinal Pell on Sexual Abuse Scandal: "Obviously Connected with Problem of Homosexuality" http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06051811.html

(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).

NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call 1-866-787-9947 or (416) 204-1687 ext. 444

Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/

[topher]

This Australian Cardinal does not seem to mince words...

I guess this is okay AFTER Archbishop-elect Wuerl has replaced Cardinal McCarrick...

[topher]

Original title was:

Cardinal Pell to Pro-Abortion Politicians: "How come you feel that you're able to go to Communion?"

I had to shorten to abide by Freeper sizes for titles...

[Gay State Conservative]

This isn't a problem for Cardinal O'Malley of Boston.Not a single member of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation bothers to go to Mass anyway.

[chit*chat]

Because they are not challenged at the alter when they go to receive it??? I would be surprised if they even attend church to participate in this sacrament. It is more for show and perhaps socialize/politic after the service.

How many of them really receive this sacrament?

[navyblue]

And Cardinal Baloney should be asking the same thing of his congressional flock in Southern California.

[ElPatriota]

HUH?.... THE NERVE!

Finally, the church saw the inconsistency!... almost like the Open Borders issue.. After all these years I am glad someone is asking the right question... A politician is not just another Catholic.. especially those who "profess" to be in good standing and you see them in church every Sunday. A Catholic politician should RUN for office exactly on those issues: Pro-life, Pro-family (anti homosexual "marriages"). They should also be "Pro-Legal-Immigration." an be active about it increasing the number of Legal Immigrants if they want to... but they should not encourage anyone to brake the laws of any country.

[Gorobei]

Devil's Advocate time;

Should a similar question be asked by those that use birth control or support the death penalty? Rome is staunchly against both.

[conserv13]

Hmmm.... I agree they should.

[ArrogantBustard]

Not "Devil's Advocate" at all ... That question should be asked. From the Pulpit.

I'd add that the death penalty DOES NOT violate Catholic teaching.

[jscd3]

Rome is staunchly against both.

"Rome" is not staunchly against capital punishment as a matter of doctrine. JPII really didn't like it, but it is not a matter of doctrine or faith. The Church has always and still does recognize the authority of the state to use the death penalty.

Hope that clears things up...

[lastchance]

The big difference is that the politicians who endorse abortion as public policy are causing a grave scandal for the Church.

Now if someone knows using artificial birth control is against Catholic teaching and persists in this sin and refuses to repent. Then they should not receive communion. If they make confession and let the priest know they will continue using artificial birth control the priest should in as charitable manner possible not give the person communion should s/he come up to receive.

As for the death penalty please read the Catholic Catechism. The death penalty may in rare instances be a legitimate means for temporal authority to protect people.
Abortion is never legit.

[proudpapa]

I'm not Catholic.

But I do know this: The death penalty saved my life.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Good for this guy. Bad for JFK and his apostate ilk.

[lastchance]

God bless that you live because of justice.

[Gorobei]

In fact, they are. In the Catechism of 1997, it is still technically permissible, but it is virtually impossible for such conditions to come about in this day and age. "Practically non-existent" is how I believe our current Pope put it back then.

So, while it takes a bit of reading between the lines, the Vatican is decidedly against capital punishment.

Hope that clears things up...as they say.

[proudpapa]

"The death penalty saved my life...

...about 2000 years ago."


And trust me there was nothing 'just' about it.

[lastchance]

Sorry I did not catch the reference. I thought you meant someone who had threatened your life had been arrested for a crime that earned him the death penalty. So you knew he was safely in jail.

And Christ's death on the cross was Just, in the sense that God Himself was willing to pay the penalty for our sins. It therefore satisfied God's justice

I do agree that how this was accomplished was injust. It is a story of lying witnesses, surrender to political pressure, betrayal, conspiracy by religious leaders and cowardice of ruling authorities.

Our Savior's torturous death on the Cross was injust and inmerciful and at first glance would seem to have accomplished a great evil. But we know better and know of His willing sacrifice. A sacrifice that became a triumph over sin and death through His resurrection.

[cpforlife.org]

Abortion and euthanasia are crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it".
--Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, 1995 - section 73 (excerpt)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

"Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority ... to defend the lives of the innocent ... among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates ... do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors and others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to heaven"
--Pope Pius XI Encyclical Casti Connubii No. 67 December 31, 1930 (excerpt)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

[Supreme Court Justice] Blackmun invented a right to abortion.... Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that.

Roe should be overruled and the issue of abortion returned to the moral sense and the democratic choice of the American people. Abortions are killings by private persons. Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception. Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion.
--Former federal judge Robert H. Bork First Things January 2003: Constitutional Persons http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0301/articles/schlueter_bork.html

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[cpforlife.org]

Passages on the Death Penalty from Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)
Pope John Paul II, 1995 http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/criminal/golpars.htm

55. ... Moreover, "legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the state." Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.

56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offense." Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated.

It is clear that for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace at the Vatican Has This to Say About the Death Penalty: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/compendium.shtml

#405. The Church sees as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defense’ on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.” 833 Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” 834 Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” 835 The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”836 The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness.

833 John Paul ii, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 27: AAS 87 (1995), 432
834 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267
835 ibid
836 John Paul ii, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 56: AAS 87 (1995), 464; cf. also John Paul II, Message for the 2001 World Day of Peace, 19” AAS 93 (2001), 244 where recourse to the death penalty is described as “unnecessarry


Statements on the Death Penalty By the Holy Father http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/holyfather.shtml

The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary. (Pope John Paul II, St. Louis, MO, January 1999) Punishment cannot be reduced to mere retribution, much less take the form of social retaliation or a sort of institutional vengeance. Punishment and imprisonment have meaning if they serve the rehabilitation of the individual by offering those who have made a mistake an opportunity to reflect and to change their lives in order to be fully reintegrated into society. (Pope John Paul II, Jubilee Homily to Prisoners, Rome, July 2002)

The Holy Father calls recourse to the death penalty “unnecessary” and painfully reminds us that our “model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message.” (Pope John Paul II, World Day of the Sick, Washington, DC, February 2003)

May the proclamation of Christmas be a source of encouragement to all those who work to bring relief to the tormented situation in the Middle East by respecting international commitments. May Christmas help to strengthen and renew, throughout the world, the consensus concerning the need for urgent and adequate measures to halt the production and sale of arms, to defend human life, to end the death penalty, to free children and adolescents from all forms of exploitation, to restrain the bloodied hand of those responsible for genocide and crimes of war, to give environmental issues, especially after the recent natural catastrophes, the indispensable attention which they deserve for the protection of creation and of human dignity! (Pope John Paul II, Christmas Day Message, 1998)

Nowadays, in America as elsewhere in the world, a model of society appears to be emerging in which the powerful predominate, setting aside and even eliminating the powerless: I am thinking here of unborn children, helpless victims of abortion; the elderly and incurably ill, subjected at times to euthanasia; and the many other people relegated to the margins of society by consumerism and materialism. Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when other "bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons. Today, given the means at the State's disposal to deal with crime and control those who commit it, without abandoning all hope of their redemption, the cases where it is absolutely necessary to do away with an offender 'are now very rare, even non-existent practically'". (Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America January 1999)

The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offense." Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated.

It is clear that for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent. (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995)
Related Internet links:
USCCB - The Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty http://www.usccb.org/sdwp

[AliVeritas]

BTTT