Skip to comments.Pope Offers Communion to Pro-Choice Politician in Italy
Posted on 08/09/2004 8:53:46 PM PDT by narses
Melinda Henneberger: At an Environment 2004 party on Beacon Hill Monday evening I ran into Francesco Rutelli, the popular former mayor of Rome, and asked him about rumors that he, a pro-choice Catholic of the Italian left, had nonetheless received communion from Pope John Paul II himself.
"Oh yes, this is true,'' he said, and asked to be walked though the controversy in the American Catholic Church, where some bishops have suggested that pro-choice politicians like John Kerry should be denied communion. "This is very strange for me,'' Rutelli said, "that you cannot be a Christian and also uphold the law of your country.''
"So, this is politics, too?'' he asked of the bishops, wryly suggesting that perhaps these American prelates were too far from Romeand too close to Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at 126.96.36.199 ...
But my question regarded your statements here, such as "Mayors don't influence public policy", not HH. You ignored my response to your answer regarding mayors and policy. (To refresh your memory, you claimed mayors have little or no influence, I pointed out this one WAS RUNNING FOR PRIME MINISTER and I asked if that changed YOUR opinion.)
Now that your memory has been refreshed, care to hazard an answer?
An answer to what?
Poor deacon. Try an answer to post 12.
Post 7 is another, prior question you might try and answer.
Anyway, I'd never turn anybody down for the Eucharist without talking to them first, and I don't speak Italian.
LOL, too funny. Neither Mayors nor Prime Ministers matter. Do US Senators matter Deacon?
You know the story,stored in a Google cache,picked up by the Boston Globe and conveyed via MSNBC on a snapshot page,now tell the truth,did either of you read it?
Sure, did you? If it is a lie, let it be refuted. Our resident internet anonymous deacon accepted it at face value. He is an ordained clergyman. Why should you or I not accept it?
Here is more:
Pope Offers Communion to Pro-Choice Politician in Italy
"I'm listening to NPR's Fresh Air this evening, with the guest John Allen, Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter. Terry Gross asked him about the whole question of American Catholic bishops prohibiting pro-choice politicians (read John Kerry) from receiving communion. Allen notes something that the Pope doesn't seem to have a problem giving communion to pro-choice politicians, which he reported on earlier in this article:
In January 2001, Rome's outgoing mayor, Francesco Rutelli, was the candidate of Italy's center-left "Olive Tree" coalition to be the country's next Prime Minister. (Rutelli went on to lose to Silvio Berlusconi). Rutelli's political background was in the Radical Party, which had led the battle for legalized abortion in Italy. As he moved into the mainstream, Rutelli took the classic position of left-leaning Catholics in public life: personally opposed to abortion, but not willing to impose his stance through law.
On Jan. 6, Rutelli and his wife Barbara, who are regular Mass-goers, attended the final act of the Catholic Church's Jubilee Year: the closing of the Holy Door at St. Peter's Basilica. Despite what in the United States would be termed his "pro-choice" stance, Rutelli came forward for Communion and received it from Pope John Paul II himself.
Also of note: In January 2001, Romes outgoing mayor, Francesco Rutelli, who had said he was personally opposed to abortion but would not impose his belief through law, received Communion from Pope John Paul II.
To those whom God has given much He expects much in return.
Demonstrating how divided the Church is on this issue (denying communion), in response to an article on the Cathoic World News web site, a writer asked: "On Jan. 6, 2001, at the concluding mass of the jubilee, John Paul II personally gave communion to Francesco Rutelli, who is one of the most active supporters of abortion in Italy. Does not the Pope lead by example and are not the bishops obligated to follow?"
Didn't the pope also personally hand out Holy Communion to the pro-abortion protestant prime minister Tony Blair?
Here are some disturbing reports:
"The year opened with a story that seemed to hint at progress, as well as the popes personal generosity. On Feb. 23, Prime Minister Tony Blair of England, along with his wife Cherie, attended Mass in John Pauls private apartment. Reports afterwards were muddled, but it now seems clear that Blair did indeed receive communion from John Paul. While this was a sign of respect for Blair, it also suggests an ecumenical sensitivity from John Paul towards Anglicanism."
Does the British prime minister have any influence on public policy?
Have you ever heard of the United States? Mayor Bloomberg had a HUGE impact on abortion. When Michael Bloomberg became mayor of NYC he made it mandatory that New York medical schools require students to take abortion, which had previously been an electibe. This was very important because most abortionists are older, and enough younger doctors were not learning abortion. The abortion industry was starting to hurt from lack of doctors. 1 in every 7 doctors in the U.S. goes to medical school in New York, and those medical schools are influential. After New York started requiring abortion California and other places followed suit. This was an absolute necessity for the abortion business, which was running out of doctors. So mayors are important.
When it comes to abortion, neither do presidents.
You aren't getting the full story. In the state of California, any abortion will be paid for by the state, no matter how much money the woman has. Bill gates wife could go in tomorrow, and the state of California would pay for her abortion.
Sure they do, along with District Attorneys and local Judges. They are the primary problem in fact. Mayors appoint Police Chiefs, who have the power to order the arrest of abortionists for murder. Mayors also control Departments of License and Inspections which have the power to shut down the Abortuary charnel houses. District Attorneys have the power to prosecute them and Judges should be tossing them in jail or sending them to see Old Sparky.
The dereliction of duty by these officials in the face of Roe vs. Wade is the primary reason we have widespread abortion.
The Supreme Court has zero power to enforce its unjust decisions. It has no police and no power of the purse. We suffer abortions because we elect moral cowards and heretics where we should be electing MEN.
That Pope John Paul II gives communion to heretics who support legal abortion is a moral shame and disgrace. He of all people should know better, since it was he who removed all debate on the topic by solemnly dogmatizing the moral teaching against abortion in Evangelium Vitae.
Now that statement is either (a) untrue, (b) obfuscation, (c) a manifestation of invicible ignorance, or (d) what I shall now dub a sinkspurism.
I admit there are other possibilities, but none of them include "truth" as a category.
Just curious, homosexual rape is that much more serious than a man raping a woman?
Regular rape doesn't "cry to Heaven for vengeance" but homosexual rape does?