Catholics who support abortion should not receive Communion, says Archbishop Burke (again :-)

CNA ^ | August 19, 2008

[NYer]

Archbishop Raymond Burke

Rome, Aug 19, 2008 / 10:00 am (CNA).- The prefect of the Apostolic Signature, Archbishop Raymond Burke, said this week that Catholics, especially politicians who publically defend abortion, should not receive Communion, and that ministers of Communion should be responsibly charitable in denying it to them if they ask for it, “until they have reformed their lives.”

In an interview with the magazine, Radici Christiane, Archbishop Burke pointed out that there is often a lack of reverence at Mass when receiving Communion.  “Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a sacrilege,” he warned.  “If it is done deliberately in mortal sin it is a sacrilege.”

To illustrate his point, he referred to “public officials who, with knowledge and consent, uphold actions that are against the Divine and Eternal moral law. For example, if they support abortion, which entails the taking of innocent and defenseless human lives.  A person who commits sin in this way should be publicly admonished in such a way as to not receive Communion until he or she has reformed his life,” the archbishop said.

“If a person who has been admonished persists in public mortal sin and attempts to receive Communion, the minister of the Eucharist has the obligation to deny it to him. Why? Above all, for the salvation of that person, preventing him from committing a sacrilege,” he added.

“We must avoid giving people the impression that one can be in a state of mortal sin and receive the Eucharist,” the archbishop continued.  “Secondly, there could be another form of scandal, consisting of leading people to think that the public act that this person is doing, which until now everyone believed was a serious sin, is really not that serious -  if the Church allows him or her to receive Communion.”

“If we have a public figure who is openly and deliberately upholding abortion rights and receiving the Eucharist, what will the average person think? He or she could come to believe that it up to a certain point it is okay to do away with an innocent life in the mother’s womb,” he warned.

Archbishop Burke also noted that when a bishop or a Church leader prevents an abortion supporter from receiving Communion, “it is not with the intention of interfering in public life but rather in the spiritual state of the politician or public official who, if Catholic, should follow the divine law in the public sphere as well.”

“Therefore, it is simply ridiculous and wrong to try to silence a pastor, accusing him of interfering in politics so that he cannot do good to the soul of a member of his flock,” he stated.

It is “simply wrong” to think that the faith must be reduced to the private sphere and eliminated from public life, Archbishop Burke said, encouraging Catholics “to bear witness to our faith not only in private in our homes but also in our public lives with others in order to bear strong witness to Christ.”

[Ransomed]

I’m tired of it too. It’s either baby butchery or it isn’t. The Church has to teach, and allowing known public pro-baby butcherers to not only take part but to loudly proclaim that baby butchery is cool with the Church isn’t teaching. They have to be called out by name and told to repent publicly, changing their policies on baby butchery and admitting that baby butchery isn’t cool with the Church.

It’s true that they have already seperated themselves from the body of Christ by their actions, but this does not address the teaching aspect for other Catholics.

Freegards

[NYer]

Thank you for the response, Mary.

What is the position of your church, Magritte, insofar as the death penalty?

[magritte]

Hey NYer...I am a Noahide, so I believe in the concept of two eyewitnesses before allowing the death penalty. As a former Catholic, I was taught the death penalty was wrong...(I had to go look it up for a reference)but it was from the Catechism...has this changed??...magritte

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

[AnAmericanMother]

By so saying, you are willing to consign prison guards, workers, fellow prisoners, and even visitors to the risk of death.

Prison is no guarantee for their safety. And then there is always the possibility of escape. The worst mass murder in GA history was committed by 3 prison escapees from North Carolina. Google "Carl Isaacs". He almost escaped several times after he was apprehended, both from jail and from prison. IIRC he was almost outside the grounds of Reidsville when they caught him in a garbage truck in a homemade uniform. He cheerfully told several reporters he would kill again if he got the chance, and he was trying hard for it.

There remain those for whom a death sentence is the only possibility. And the Church recognizes this.

[AnAmericanMother]

I'm laughing here - our new young priest must be the cousin of your man! He hands out Rosaries with a heavy hand (I deserved it, too!)

Judging from our younger men, serious Catholicism is on the way back. I hope it's here to stay! If I had wanted lukewarm Christianity, I could have stayed an Episcopalian!