Skip to comments.Catholic Group says "Archbishop Burke Right to Deny Communion to Giuliani"
Posted on 10/07/2007 6:52:08 PM PDT by monomaniac
CHICAGO, October 4, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Fidelis, a national Catholic advocacy group, applauded the courageous decision by St. Louis' Archbishop Raymond Burke to deny Holy Communion to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, and all pro-abortion politicians running for president, regardless of their political party.
The Associated Press is reporting that Archbishop Raymond Burke would deny Holy Communion to Rudy Giuliani and any pro-abortion Catholic running for president. Four Catholic Democrats running for president also support abortion, include: Senator Christopher Dodd, Senator Joe Biden, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
When asked if he would deny the sacrament to Giuliani, Burke responded, "If the question is about a Catholic who is publicly espousing positions contrary to the moral law and I know that person knows it, yes I would," said Burke. "It is a cause of concern for me and for all bishops to find ourselves in this situation."
Fidelis President Brian Burch commented, "Faithful Catholics across the United States are thrilled to see Archbishop Burke courageously stand up for the dignity of every human person by confronting yet another Catholic pro-abortion politician. Candidate Giuliani has shamelessly supported the unlimited right to abortion, including partial-birth abortion, and has even vowed to fund abortion with taxpayer dollars, while campaigning as a devoted Catholic."
"The Archbishop's courageous decision to deny Communion to pro-abortion Catholic Rudy Giuliani -- a Republican -- proves that this not a partisan issue," said Burch.
"The Archbishop's bold defense of the Church should be a wake up call for Catholics across the country. Sadly, several recent polls still show that many Catholics are unaware of the pro-abortion positions espoused by Giuliani. Any politician looking to win the support of Catholic voters should be held to a high standard, and that includes a commitment to defend the most vulnerable and innocent in our society, particularly the unborn," continued Burch.
Fidelis is a national Catholic-based advocacy organization based in Chicago. Fidelis America, the political arm of Fidelis, recently published newspaper advertisements informing Iowa voters of Rudy Giuliani's three decades of support for abortion.
To see a copy of the Giuliani ad, visit http://www.fidelis.org/rudy.php
Does Pelosi get communion?
Never quite understood why/how it suddenly became news whether/to what extent political candidates participate in their faith's rituals.
He’d better watch out. If Rudy becomes president, he might be classified as an enemy combatant.
Are you old enough to remember the Kennedy campaign? Questions about his participation in his faith were very common. Common enough to make headlines in our nations biggest newspapers.
Im not a supporter of Giuliani by any stretch, but this is common fare for political opponents and will get worse as the days go by. Religious stuff only comes up during election time, otherwise, nobody seems to care.
The presence of God should not be a political football. The decision to grant Communion to Democrats in the last election, while Priests and Bishops knew of their positions , to Me has pretty much nullified this position. The Church has let various Kennedy’s continue,An others. They know all about them, and the list continues.. of abuses.To little ole me this sounds like a socialist , trying to select his guy thru the use of Communion.. Its selective - should be highlighted , exposed
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has been way too inconsistent, in my view (for the record, I’m Catholic). Whereas I don’t know for sure, I would guess that Ted Kennedy takes communion, as one example. Further, I think it is ridiculous that one can get an annulment after being married for many years, and then take communion again as one who has never officially broken their marriage commitment. That’s ridiculous. Either let all divorced people take communion, or deny annulments that occur more than several months after marriage. Further, I’ve seen this pushed even in circumstances in which there are multiple children from the marriage. What does this say to the children of that marriage? I know this is somewhat off topic, but I do see plenty of inconsistency.
Questions about his participation in his faith were very common. Common enough to make headlines in our nations biggest newspapers.
Duh... Rudy is divorced and remarried.
Headline = Well, if ANYone knows the difference between right and wrong...it’s the Catholic clergy....
The Catholic church seems very selective in its enforcement. As others have noted, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, the Kennedys and countless other dems seem to never be challenged by the church over this and other matters.
Once it is known that a candidate has a religion, the next step is to find out how religious they are without violating the 'no religious test' clause. Sounds plausible.
A simple answer, yes or no, is entirely insufficient to gain some insight as to the depth and dedication one has to their faith.
Next it will be, 'how many times did you go to confession this year,' or 'do you speak in tongues' or 'can you sing at least 10 Gospel songs without looking at the book?'
Bishop Burke is obviously not responsible for what anyone outside his authority does. I suggest you look up what he had to say about giving, e.g., John Kerry communion during the last election before you conclude that he's somehow not acting in good faith. (Hint: he was against it.)
“Duh... Rudy is divorced and remarried.”
Yep, with one of those really convenient annulments as well (after a decade and a half of marriage).
***Headline = Well, if ANYone knows the difference between right and wrong...its the Catholic clergy....***
Nord, I don’t blame you for your anger against any priest who abused children. I’m far more angry that you are because I’m a Catholic. But, please note that 99% of the Catholic clergy are innocent. And the rest are being culled out.
I think the local parishes for both Pelosi and Kerry have told them they will not receive communion, but not sure if it was actually carried out.
Culled out?! Unless culled out means prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned and labeled a child molester for the rest of their lives they are getting off easy. The Church protected these perverts for years and they should be held criminally responsible for enabling the molestation of children for decades. Instead of paying off the boys they molested the Church should come clean turn states evidence and report all of their perverts to local law enforcement. That would be far more church-like than using their flocks dollars to pay off the victims of the sexual perversion of their priests. Just my opinion.
FYI...My husband and his entire family is Catholic...you're drawing conclusions out of emotion, my FRiend.
And just for good measure, I don't think YOU should be paying for those who committed crimes, as some are proposing.
Maybe you ought to try tempering your opinion with a bit of reason and logic.
You might start by understanding that "paying off the victims" is not really an optional exercise, when you're on the losing end of a civil lawsuit. All the criminal prosecutions in the world aren't going to stop the civil judgments. Catholic bishops could drive the pedophiles to the D.A.'s office and send them up the stairs on the points of a pitchfork, and it wouldn't decrease the civil liability one cent.
Most of the sex abuse cases are decades past the statute of limitations and not subject to criminal prosecution anyway.
But don't let logic and facts get in the way of your rant.
BTW, read up on the amount of sex abuse that goes on in public schools. And reflect on the fact that public school systems enjoy sovereign immunity from civil action that the Catholic church does not.
So is that the standard for your Church now? As long as you get away with sodomizing young boys in the 60s and 70s it's ok? Please tell me that's not what you believe. Unless and until your Church begins to turn in it's perverts the world will most definitely think twice about allowing it's sons to practice their religion alone with your priests. See where you and I differ is on the point of who needs protection. As evidenced by your post, your Church for decades claimed to protect our kids. You on the other hand choose to protect your church and the perverts it protects using the rationale that if they molested boys decades ago the statute of limitations rewards their perversion. I say whether it be 5 months or 20 years ago the sodomizers of our kids have all earned their place in Hell. If you truly believe in the tenets of your faith you must agree with me. Your thoughts?
I was surprised to see your reply, and puzzled over what I might have said that offended you. THEN................I saw:
***Im far more angry that you are because Im a Catholic.***
I’m signing up for a proofreading class pronto. That SHOULD have read, I’m far more angry THAN you are because I’m a Catholic. I think that changes the meaning of my sentence. And I hope you know I have great respect for you, and would never deliberately offend you.
Am I forgiven?
My day for mistakes in posting. Please see #26. Once again, please accept my apology.
What a surprise, there are people out there that can see, without being blinded by defending their faith, whenever it’s leaders selective actions are questioned.
I think communities should be in charge of their own churches --by the people for the people kind of thing. Then, religion won't be such a business that feels it needs to protect it's earnings statement and cooks the books," you know?
If it's a community thing, there's more love and feeling of camaraderie. Kids would be less likely to do wrong--like in the old days--because everyone in your community KNOWS you. I long for the character of yesteryear, but the openness of today.