Posted on 11/13/2008 4:43:36 PM PST by upchuck
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."
The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.
"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.
"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."
During the 2008 campaign, many bishops spoke out on abortion more boldly than four years earlier, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back. A few church leaders said parishioners risked their immortal soul by voting for candidates who support abortion rights.
But bishops differ on whether Catholic lawmakers—and voters—should refrain from receiving Communion if they diverge from church teaching on abortion. Each bishop sets policy in his own diocese. In their annual fall meeting, the nation's Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The Church has no secular enforcement mechanism: no fines, no imprisonment, no stout monks at the door either to compel people to come in, or prevent them from going out.
The Church's "medicinal" and "penal" sanctions (that is, penalties intended to bring about necessary repentance, or to make a person aware of the error of their ways) are all spiritual. The worst of these, is separation from the Sacraments.
If people really don't give a flip about separation from the Sacraments, then they are frauds if they call themelves Catholics.
How I admire, by way of contrast, the atheist who does not try to pass himself off as a follower of Christ, who says, with refreshing honesty, "T'hell with that Catholic crap."
There must be some fascination for you otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time tugging the nose hairs of Catholics. The paradox you face is that, for you, since you don't believe, the bread is still bread and the wine is still wine, but for those who believe it is the resurrected body and blood of Christ that was given up for us. It is part of a new and everlasting covenant, one not subject to revision by those seeking expanded divorce privileges, or seeking to form a political and economic counter balance to other European countries.
There is even a secular beauty in the Communion celebration for people like you to appreciate. Like a continuous line of dominoes that have been falling for nearly 2,000 years when we (Catholics) participate in the Eucharist we are touched by a continuous string of events set in motion by Christ himself at the Last Supper.
The consequences of excommunication are not of this life.
Nice try. I will side with the Pope and my conscience that tells me that more than 40 million murdered unborn babies is enough.
Incidentally, do you have any statistics to support your point that a Catholic voter who supported a pro-abortion candidate actually went through this pain-staking thought process in deciding whom to vote for? You sound like you are giving them an excuse.
"All the way to heaven is heaven, because Christ said, 'I am the Way'." --- St. Catherine of Siena.
Medieval? Nonsense. It goes back to the Bronze Age; heck, it goes back to the dawn of humanity.
But don't be a temporally narrow-minded or chronologically provincial. What matters is not "Is it old?" or "Is it new?" but "Is it true?"
Denying God diminishes you, not Him.
You are very correct. There is no Church dogma or other canon law that says it is a sin to vote for a candidate that is in support of choice. (I won’t say supports abortion because I know plenty of people on both sides of this issue and not one is in favor of abortion.) The Vatican made it very clear in 2004 when Kerry was running that it was up to the individual voter to make their own moral judgement that they can live with. Additionally, the Church also made it clear, again, that you only commit a mortal sin if you directly assist someone in getting an abortion or if you yourself have an abortion.
One more thing... this is only this priest’s opinion. Nothing more. It’s no different than a few weeks ago when our new priest told everyone that “our Catholic faith teaches us that” when we die we will have no memory or recollection or awareness of our previous earthly life. We won’t know anything else but being in the presence of God. I told my wife later that I wonder if anyone told Moses and Abraham that when they appeared to Jesus on the mountain. For that matter, if our priest is correct (which he is most assuredly not), why do we even bother to pray to saints? Why bother to even pray to Mary?
Hopefully we’ll be successful in getting rid of this guy pretty soon.
"What is the criteria by which a person should not receive communion?"
That's an easy one: anyone conscious of serious sin should not receive Communion unless he repents, confesses the sin and received absolution.
"Abortion is murder. Obama isn’t personally committing murder. He is facilitating it."
First of all, the classic teaching is that there are nine ways of being an accessory to another’s sin:
If someone, say, burned down your house, and a second party helped him do it, justified his doing it, or concealed that he'd done it, I think you'd agree that the second party had some share in the guilt.
I would add a tenth category there:
An example would be: if in 1936, the Reichschancellor had announced that henceforth certain crimes -- say, vandalism, theft, assault, or even murder --would not lead to arrest or prosecution if they were committed against Jews, the Reichschancellor would be morally culpable for the subsequent crimes, because he does not have the moral authority to authorize crimes against any disfavored subset of the population.
That's directly analogous to the crime of "authorizing" abortion.
"Christ said if you have anger in your heart against someone you have committed murder. So every person in that congregation has actually committed murder, not just facilitated it. So by that logic no one should receive communion."
Quite right on that point. If a person has anger in their heart against another, they should not receive Communion until they have repented and confessed.
"Why did [the priest] wait til now to make this proclamation?"
Right on that point too. Excommunications for voting for pro-abortion candidates should have begun when legal abortions began: some 40 years ago.
"Then why single out abortion? There are plenty of other sins to consider."
True as far as it goes. Singling out abortion is legitimate, though, because it is murder; mass murder; legally-approved mass murder. That makes it distinguishable from, and more serious than, most other sins.
I would go so far as to say that, for some politicians, their participation in abortion is more morally serious than for some aborting women.
This is my opinion because for some women, their subjective guilt is mitigated by reason of their ignorance or immaturity, or because they are being coerced by persons more powerful than they are, persons upon whom they may be emotionally and/or economically dependent (parents, boyfriend, husband, etc.)
A political figure has no such excuse. In his case, it's more likely unmitigated moral corruption.
Please read more carefully. I prefaced this with the word “knowingly”.
However, to my literal shock and sorrow, I have run into such people. There is no way I would justify their pro-Obama vote; in fact, I contested hotly with them.
In 3 cases, I got them to change their minds. Amazingly.
But I did learn something: that some people have ways of thinking that would blow your mind.
Parties are fun!
Not quite. See #131.
Failure to consider abortion when voting is a Mortal Sin and they have by that sin excommunicated themselves.
:o)
Any 'Catholic' who disagrees with Rome on this matter are not Catholics, whatever they think.
It is the job of the Church to destroy the 'modern world'.
Who made you pope?
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.