I think many sheep have jumped on the bandwagon since they like the end result without giving this much thought. What is the criteria by which a person should not receive communion?
Abortion is murder. Obama isn’t personally committing murder. He is facilitating it. 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.
Then look at another aspect. Many of those members have been voting democrat all their lives and not necessarily because of abortion. Long before Obama they were voting for local, state and federal democrats that supported abortion policies. So why did he wait til now to make this proclamation? It should apply to anyone who ever voted for a dem based on that logic not just to those who supported Obama.
Then why single out abortion? There are plenty of other sins to consider. So while I love the end result of tarring Obama and poking a stick in the eye of the abortion lovers I find this Priests reasoning bizarre and untenable.
"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.