Pro-abortion, nominally-Catholic politicians think they are above the law

Pro-abortion, nominally-Catholic politicians think they are "above the law." They should be officially declared to have excommunicated themselves from their Church, in order to prevent sacrilege, public scandal and confusion.

Leading Democrats, particularly pro-abortion nominal Catholics, love to charge that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and even Congressional Republicans consider themselves "above the law." Examples: (1) Senator John Kerry, D-Mass.: President Bush "spoke for nearly two hours, but failed to explain why he considers himself above the law"; (2) Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.: "The Bush administration seems to believe it is above the law"; (3) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal.: "The Republicans want to be above the law when it comes to respecting minority rights which are part of the law of our land."

In fact, neither the Bush Administration nor Congressional Republicans consider themselves "above the law." Their hypocritical political enemies pretend otherwise as a perverse political strategy. They are so eager to impeach a Republican President, as revenge for the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice (felonies under federal law), that they instinctively try to criminalize political differences. Example: Democrats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives took steps toward impeachment when they discovered that President Bush had authorized a secret terrorist surveillance program, under both his inherent power under the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief and post-September 11, 2001 legislation, each completely sufficient authority in itself, after receiving legal advice that he was authorized to do so, and they let up only after it became obvious that Americans overwhelmingly appreciated what he had done and wisely wanted him to protect America from terrorists without letting the terrorists know what he was doing.

I say hypocritical because these baptized Catholic politicians arrogantly and outrageously think that they are "above the law," specifically, canon law (the law of their church). On April 23, 2004, Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, authoritatively explained at a press conference in Rome that unrepentant pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians should be denied Communion. Relying on Canon 915, which specifies that "[t]hose...who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion," Cardinal Arinze put it succinctly: "If they should not receive, then they should not be given."

House Minority Leader Pelosi, ardent abortion supporter and nominal Roman Catholic, brazenly announced that she "fully intend[s] to receive communion, one way or another," despite Vatican opposition to the receipt of Holy Communion by persons professing to be both Catholics in a state of grace and abortion supporters. Ms. Pelosi explained that receiving Holy Communion is "very important" to her. That makes good sense politically, since a Catholic who presents herself or himself for Communion thereby represents that she or he is in a state of grace and being in a state of grace (or at least appearing to be) is still a political plus.

But, the law, Canon 915, provides that "[t]hose... who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion." Bishops who are reluctant to embarrass prominent politicians need to recall that Jesus had no patience for those moneychangers in the Temple. Protecting the sanctity of the Temple was His paramount consideration then. The protection of the Holy Eucharist must be the bishops' paramount consideration today.

Averting public scandal is vital. As St. Thomas Aquinas long ago explained, a distinction "must be made" between secret and open sinners, and "Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it." Bishop William K. Weigand of Sacramento has called on pro-choice Catholic politicians to refrain from taking Holy Communion. "As your bishop, I have to say clearly that anyone — politician or otherwise — who thinks it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at risk, and is not in good standing with the Church. Such a person should have the integrity to acknowledge this and choose of his own volition to abstain from receiving Holy Communion until he has a change of heart," he said.

In 2003, Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, then Bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin, went further. He publicly decreed that Catholic legislators in his diocese who "support procured abortion or euthanasia may not present themselves to receive Holy Communion" and are to be denied Holy Communion if they nevertheless present themselves "until...they publicly renounce their support of these most unjust practices." Prior private efforts to persuade had been rebuffed. Archbishop Burke emphasized that he did what a bishop is required to do. He explained that "[t]he duty of Catholic legislators to respect human life is....God's law," and that bishops who "remain silent[s] while the faith, in one of its most fundamental tenets, is...openly disobeyed by those who present themselves as sincere adherents of the faith, [has] failed most seriously and should be removed from office."

As Pope John Paul II proclaimed in his 1988 Apostolic Exhortation:

"Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and condition to all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination."

For what has become a scandalously long time, the Roman Catholic Church has neglected to bar from Holy Communion many prominent nominal Catholics who publicly and proudly support abortion, in blatant violation of the fundamental Church teaching that human life is sacred and begins at conception. John Kerry, a nominal Catholic, lost both the Catholic vote and the presidential election in 2004. (Previously, two other Democrats who had run for President — Alfred E. Smith, in 1928, and John F. Kennedy, in 1960, had won 80% and 78% of the Catholic vote, respectively.) Senator Kerry supported partial-birth abortion, called abortion a woman's right and vowed to appoint only pro-abortion justices. At the dinner hosted by NARAL Pro-Choice America (formerly, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Kerry proclaimed, "We are not going to turn back the clock. There is no overturning of Roe v. Wade. There is no packing of courts with judges who will be hostile to choice."

Senator Kerry regularly created a public scandal by receiving Holy Communion while flagrantly rejecting fundamental Church teaching. In 1971, Senator Kerry's Massachusetts colleague and fellow nominal Catholic, Ted Kennedy, wrote, "Human life, even at its earliest stages, has a certain right which must be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old." Then Roe v. Wade was decided and political expediency prevailed over Catholic principle for many ambitious politicians.

In 1975, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) described the right to life as "among basic human rights." In 1998 it issued a pastoral letter chastising Catholic politicians for supporting abortion and euthanasia. Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, then its president, welcomed a Vatican doctrinal note denouncing Catholic politicians who support abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, and human cloning. Bishop Gregory explained that "Catholic politicians cannot subscribe to any notion which equates freedom or democracy with a moral relativism that denies these moral principles."   The sanctioning of pro-abortion nominal Catholic politicians is necessary. Like racism, abortion is a grave sin. Its tolerance is intolerable. Like covering up child abuse, tolerating the receipt of Holy Communion by pro-abortion politicians is an abomination.

The case of Louisiana racist Leander Perez illustrates why Communion must be denied to those who are publicly rejecting fundamental church teaching. In 1962 an exasperated Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans finally excommunicated Leander Perez for opposing desegregation in Catholic schools. Perez eventually repented (as did others of his ilk), and the school integration succeeded. As a state judge and political boss of Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish, Perez made the lives of African-Americans miserable. But Perez could not intimidate Archbishop Rummel, who not only knew that racial segregation was sinful, but that it needed to be ended. The Archbishop noted that "enforced racial discrimination inflicts incalculable mental and emotional cruelty and pain, physical and social privations, educational and economic restrictions upon 16 millions of our fellow citizens, and that these discriminations are unjustifiable violations of the Christian way of life and the principles of our American heritage."

In 1953 the Archbishop's pastoral letter, "Blessed Are the Peacemakers," was read aloud in the archdiocese's churches. It declared "the unacceptability of racial discrimination." Perez and his allies were unmoved. The Archbishop threatened in 1956 to excommunicate them, but they held protest rallies and withheld church contributions instead of repenting.   Interestingly, segregationist Catholics formed the Association of Catholic Laymen of New Orleans and it "asked the Pope (Pius XII) to stop Rummel from taking further steps to integrate white and Negro Catholics and to decree that racial segregation is not 'morally wrong and sinful'" ("Morals" 36). The Vatican's response was a reminder that that "the Pope had condemned racism as a major evil, asserting 'that those who enter the Church... have rights as children in the House of the Lord.'"

In 1962, the Archbishop at last acted decisively. He announced that in the fall, the city's Catholic schools would admit black students. Perez and his allies persisted in their opposition, so the archbishop excommunicated them for continuing "to hinder his orders or provoke the devoted people of this venerable archdiocese to disobedience or rebellion in the matter of opening our schools to all Catholic children." They were barred from the Mass and sacraments as well as Catholic burial.   By the fall, 104 black children were admitted to the city's Catholic schools. By 1968, Perez repented and, after his death in 1969, was given a Catholic burial.

The barring of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and other pro-abortion nominally Catholic politicians has been too long delayed. The sooner the bar is imposed, the better. Perhaps they too will repent before death and receive a Catholic burial. Jesus did not pander to politicians, much less put monetary considerations (such as tax exemption) before principle.

Sin should be identified as such and political correctness does not excuse sin.

A priest who knowingly gives Communion to a pro-abortion politician commits a grave sin as well as the unworthy recipient.

Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us." Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2120.

St. Paul was unambiguous: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup." 1 Corinthians 11:27-28.

"Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in a state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance." Catechism 1415.

The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church. Catechism 1395.

Who understands canon law better, the late Pope John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict XVI, or Senator Kerry and Leader Pelosi?

The Popes, obviously.

In a memorandum, delivered as guidance for the first of the 2004 meetings of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1981, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows:

"1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one's worthiness to do so, according to the Church's objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

"2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that 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 favour of such a law or vote for it'" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

"3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

"4. Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

"5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

"6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."

Cardinal McCarrick apparently neglected to provide a copy of Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum to his fellow bishops during their meeting last month and instead told them that what to do about nominally Catholic pro-abortion politicians seeking Communion was a discretionary matter for them to handle as they thought best.

Canon law needs to be applied, because neither pro-abortion Catholic politicians nor bishops are "above the law"!

In 2004, Marc A. Balestrieri, a canon lawyer and then an assistant judge of an ecclesiastical court in the Los Angeles Archdiocese (until he filed the Kerry heresy case), determined to stop the scandal of persistently obstinate pro-abortion politicians posing as fit to receive Communion and being accommodated, in contravention of Canon 915) and boldly began his campaign to set matters right with Senator Kerry.

On June 14, 2004, Mr. Balestrieri filed with the Boston Archdiocese a sworn document described as "a Denunciation for the Public Ecclesiastical Crime of Heresy, Diabolical Scandal Leading to Heresy, Immediate Formal Cooperation in Heresy, Abjection of the Sacred Species, Diabolical Scandal Leading to Murder, and Grave Harm to Public Morals and Contempt for the Faith and Ecclesiastical Authority" and "a Criminal Complaint for Reparation of Harm" resulting from the crimes listed.

Mr. Balestrieri denounced Senator Kerry's "deliberate, manifest, and pertinacious adherence to the proposition that one has a right to choose abortive murder."

Mr. Balestrieri identified that as an ecclesiastical crime, heresy, that is, "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith...."

The relief demanded is a declaration of excommunication and the imposition of additional penalties and punishments against Senator Kerry, including barring Senator Kerry from receiving Communion or any other sacrament until Senator Kerry publicly repudiates his heretical support for abortion or, in Mr. Balestrieri's words, "the Right-to-Murder heresy."

To show Senator Kerry's persistent obstinacy, Mr. Balestrieri cited Senator Kerry's support for abortion in his first speech in the United States Senate more than nineteen years ago and his perfect pro-abortion voting record, including opposition to even partial birth abortion.

Mr. Balestrieri also vigorously objected to Senator Kerry's public receipt of Holy Communion several times in 2004 and asserted as fact "an urgent need for the elimination of Scandal whereby a life-threatening heresy attacking a Dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith is growing substantially within the Church."

After Mr. Balestrieri's ecclesiastical case against him was reported by the Washington Times, Senator Kerry surprised his own spokesperson by claiming to believe that life begins at conception

But Senator Kerry subsequently claimed a distinction between the life that begins at conception and human life worthy of legal protection and is continuing to try to have it both ways on a life-and-death matter and now to lead the fight to block Judge Alito's confirmation, because Judge Alito will not take the Abortion Forever pledge.

To the naïve, Senator Kerry's position may make him look admirably open-minded and restrained instead of arbitrary and controlling.

However, it is sheer sophistry, that is, "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation," of which Senator Kerry should be ashamed.

The "separation between faith and life" that Senator Kerry is trying to use for political advantage was condemned long ago by the Second Vatican Council as "counted among the more serious errors of our age."

To repeat: As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in its Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life: "[T]he lay Catholic's duty to be morally coherent...is one and indivisible. There cannot be two parallel lives...: on the one hand, the so-called 'spiritual life,' with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called 'secular' life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture."

The Doctrinal Note emphasized that lay Catholics, in fulfilling civic duties, are to be "'guided by a Christian conscience,' in conformity with its values," and that "their proper task [is] infusing the temporal order with Christian values, all the while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of that order, and cooperating with other citizens according to their particular competence and responsibility."

The Doctrinal Note categorically rejected the claims that citizens have "complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices and lawmakers...are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends, as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value."

The Doctrinal Note distinguished legitimate and illegitimate freedom. It explicitly respected "the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good."

The Doctrinal Note explained that it is "the Church's right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law."

With respect to abortion, the Doctrinal Note was emphatic: "John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them."

A faithful Catholic politician may not compromise on fundamental matters. "When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death."

Senator Kerry surely knows that the truth concerning the right to life of all persons from conception to natural death is not an idiosyncratic "religious" notion and his talismanic invocation of the words "separation of church and state" does not immunize him from responsibility for his sin of promoting abortion in the eyes of God or the Church.

Senator Kerry and all other politicians of whatever political affiliation should not be permitted to confuse their fellow Americans or to intimidate any member of the Roman Catholic clergy.

In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II had written that "Christian Tradition...is clear and unanimous, from the beginning up to our own day, in describing abortion as a particularly grave moral disorder," and that "Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, the same doctrine has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors."

Canon 750, §1 of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 states

"All that is contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and also proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, must be believed with divine and catholic faith; it is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore, all are bound to avoid any doctrine whatever which are contrary to these truths."

Mr. Balestrieri subsequently sought similar declarations of excommunication against former New York Governor Cuomo, Senator Kennedy and Iowa Senator or Tom Harkin, shamelessly pro-abortion nominal Catholics and Democrats, as well as Maine Senator Susan Collins, a similarly afflicted Republican.

It costs money to pursue such ecclesiastical proceedings. If you can, go to www.defide.com and make a contribution (and ask Mr. Balestrieri to initiate an ecclesiastical proceeding against Leader Pelosi).

It is to be hoped that declarations of excommunication will be issued sooner rather than later, so that those "Catholic" politicians who have excommunicated themselves will appreciate what they have done and repent and, at a minimum, the sacrilege, public scandal and confusion will cease.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.