Skip to comments.Under the New Pope’s Teaching, Should Pelosi and Biden Be Ex-Communicated?
Posted on 03/21/2013 2:30:00 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Before he became Pope Francis, the Argentine cardinals doctrine would have excluded Vice President Joe Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi from Communion. Father Shenan J. Boquet president of Human Life International explains:
While we cannot know what is truly in someones heart, all too often political or other high-profile figures who profess to be members of the Catholic faith give rise to scandal when they publicly promote intrinsic evils such as abortion, euthanasia, the redefinition of marriage, and contraceptionseveral of which have been championed by Vice President Biden and Rep. Pelosi throughout their political careers.
As Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, taught in the 2007 Aparecida Document, the responsibility of legislators, heads of governments to not receive Holy Communion while engaged in deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged is a very serious one......
(Excerpt) Read more at theothermccain.com ...
(I am not Catholic, so I do not fully understand excommunication)
However, it appears that the Pope has made it clear, support for abortion is grievous enough to deny communion, it would also seem to follow excommunication.
IF this pope is as conservative as some are saying, THEN it should be imperative that he would deal with these miscreants accordingly
They just took communion at the Vatican this week, so they are probably pretty safe.
Absolutely, and I’m disgusted that it didn’t happen. All it shows is that these two creeps pushed their thumbs in all Catholics’ eyes . . . and they’re probably still laughing.
In light of this week's news, the spinmeisters are already hard at work saying that no one at the Vatican knew who they were amongst all the visiting dignitaries who were also offered Communion, and anyway it's okay because the Pope didn't personally give them the Eucharist himself.
New Pope: No Communion for Pro-Abortion Politicians
Pope Francis I clear on denying Communion to those who facilitate in abortion
Despite abortion views, Biden, Pelosi receive communion in Vatican Mass [Catholic Caucus]
Does anyone have any pictures of Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi receiving communion?
Pro-abortion Biden and Pelosi receive communion, but not from Pope at inaugural Mass
Will Pope Francis fulfill Benedict's legacy on abortion and Communion?
Biden and Pelosis In Your Face to Pope Francis
That being said: I am evangelical...and it doesn't matter whether you are RCC, Evangelical or Mainline Protestant...we ALL have those people within our midst and within our pastoral heirarchy...and I despise them all. There are just as many people within Protestant/Evangelical circles who hold the "pro-LIFE" stance but their knees get weak around power...and they tolerate Jezabel within their midst and wouldn't even dream of following 1 Cor 5 and separating that person from them.
I once had lunch with Nick Lampson. He knew I was a preacher and was being real chatty. I could tell he was looking for a dim "in-road" to the "faith" vote in the district he was carpet-bagging in (his 3rd or 4th now). I looked at him in the eye and told him I wouldn't let him...or ANY politician...not even George Bush (this was in 2004) into my pulpit unless he was there to preach Christ and Him crucified...and that NO politician, R or D, would ever have my support if they held to the pro-choice stance, whether by voice or vote (including electing a pro-choice speaker)...and I would publically condemn anyone who HAS that opinion. It shows that one had no moral compass...and the last thing we need in DC are people whose moral compass' are broke.
They are not in communion with the Catholic Church and they are already excommunicated. They have already excommunicated themselves by their behavior.
Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics and remain bound by obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.). However, their communion with the Church is considered gravely impaired. In spite of that, they are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in it.
The man is BRAND NEW in the job. Maybe wait six months or a year to see where he’s headed.
In the words of Joe Biden that would be a.... Oh nevermind...
Do you consider his thirty-two years as a Jesuit priest, and twelve years as a Cardinal, to have left him unprepared for the job?
But I shouldn’t have expected anything other than business as usual.
No more than any other Cardinal Archbishop, I suppose. Just like a governorship or senate seat should prepare one for the presidency, it really doesn’t. because it’s a whole new ballgame.
See my #9.
At the very least their respective bishops should explain why they haven’t been denied the sacraments.
rules, rules ~ always those ticky tacky rules used to excuse miscreants miscreanting ~ of course they knew where Biden and Pelosi were ~ surrounded with 75 heavily armed Secret Service agents
Pope Francis didn’t give communion, but the hypocritical witch Pelosi got in line anyway and received communion, just like good little hypocrites do every at Mass. She knows exactly what’s she’s doing. She could care less.
The Pope and his office knew they were coming and he knew about their attempted slam on the sacrament. The Communion issuing priests could easily have been made aware of what troublemakers might show up with instructions on how to deal with them. Instead Biden and Pelosi were allowed to just come in and turn the service into a public mockery.
To me, it bodes very ill for this Pope's ultimate sincerity on this issue. He sure had none to begin with.
Simply, excommunication means being obliged not to receive Communion.
ANYBODY who commits a "mortal sin" is obliged not to receive communion (except in an emergency) unless he goes to confession and is absolved.
Some deeds are singled out. Having or procuring an abortion,for example, makes you excommunicated.
Here's one place where canon law is different from what we're familiar with. In such a case you are excommunicated latae sententiae -- automatically. You know what you did, you know the law (theoretically) so there's no need for a formal inquiry and declaration.
But you can also be officially declared excommunicated. That would be different. So if somebody says, "anyone who advocates or requires abortion is excommunicate," or even if a bishop, say the Bishop of San Francisco, asks a politician into his office and says,"You know, you really should not receive communion," it's not official. It is on the individual, and the divine penalty is on him too.
Also, there are misdeeds which automatically excommunicate and which require the Holy See (the pope or his agents) to lift the excommunication. A priest who breaks the seal of the confessional can only be readmitted to communion by the Holy See.
The way the canons are written is unusual. The relevant canon, 912, says
Can. 912 Any baptised person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to holy communion.SO that's like the default position. A minister of Holy Communion must assume, unless he KNOWS otherwise, that the person in front of him "may and must" receive.
SO, unless it's official, the minister has to assume that, however unlikely it may be, the person in front of him went to confession and was readmitted to the sacrament before he stood there and said, "Amen."
I don't know the official procedures for declaring someone excommunicate AND declaring the lifting of that status as "reserved." But it would take some sort of formal declaration not only that the person was excommunicated but that the excommunication could not be lifted by some random confessor. THEN the minister could deny the sacrament.
One way to look at this is that the canons bend over backwards to make provision for God's acting mercifully in the life of the sinner, and also that they are based on the idea that God knows what hes doing even when we don't.
Have you seen the pictures of Joe Biden making his entrance?
I guess they were lying to me.
It is not possible for the Vatican of the bishops to publicly excomminicate all the silly apostate Catholics who endorse anti-life policies that are completely contrary to the Catholic doctrines and indeed, biblical thruths since the time of the New Testament.
However, it would be possible for the entire Bishops conferance to anounce that any such dissenting Catholics should not approach the altar to receive holy Communion.
It is the belief of the RC church that to receive the Holy Eucharist knowingly with a sinful heart [i.e. with grave sinupon your sould] is to call down upon your soul the risk of eternal damnation. A publication of the sins involved which are pro-abortion, adultery, pro-euthanasia, acceptance of homosexual behavior or Gay marraige, etc. needs to be done often and repeatedly until all Catholics understand the gravity of their actions upon the destiny of their immortal souls. Such persons excommunicate themselves and it behooves the leaders, the bishops, to proclaim it publicly.
It mighr be a good idea as well to give examples of some famous folks like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, as examples of persons whose actions have excommunicated themselves.
God and his Son, Jesus Christ will not be mocked!
The Vatican is using the easy out that people who commit sins worthy of excommunication, “self-excommunicate”. But this is unsatisfactory on all accounts.
Since they have long been apprehensive about chastising political leaders, though they would probably be unwilling, a good way to start excommunication is when the political leader has died.
When asked to justify not burying them in a consecrated Catholic cemetery, they could state that they long ago excommunicated themselves, and never sought redemption. Now the purpose of doing this is obviously not the deceased politician, but the ones still living in sin.
The church should ignore any inquiries as to whether when they die they will be buried with Catholic auspices. Let them sweat about it, and let it be their legacy, that they had fallen from grace and went to their grave unrepentant and without absolution, the blood of innocents on their hands.
I wish someone in a position to do so, would declare that these two, and any who favor abortion, would be considered excommunicated. That is what God would have done if he were here. Read the bible. Jesus was no wimp. He called it like it was. So should we!
My Dad was excommunicated.
He received a letter (do not remember who my Mom said it was from), that because he was marring my Mom and she was not only not Catholic but said she would not allow her children to be raised as Catholics, he was told “good bye” and his future children were all going to hell.
That was in 1945, so who knows what was going on at that time.
They sure as hell would be chastized at my southern baptist congregation
Under any Popes reign, Pelosi and Biden should be excommunicated.
Well that would be a declaration with implicit conditions for being readmitted.
Did the letter really say all y’all were going to hell? Wow!
If it's all up to the individual, then Canon 915 has to be removed from Canon Law as totally absurd.
Canon 915 applies to and places expectations on the presiding clergy to enforce the rules of Canon Law and to do so, make sure those who are excommunicated or under interdict " . . . are not to be admitted to holy communion". The fact is, the Clergy have a responsibility to the Sacrament itself no matter what is contingent on the individual who may be excommunicated or under interdict.
All the talk about the individual presenting them self being the responsible party and everyone else is held harmless is a case of comparing apples to oranges. Canon 915 makes it clear that, no, the clergy are not to just assume that anyone who shows up should receive communion. They are responsible if they serve communion to someone who is excommunicated just as much as the individual who knows better unless it is absolutely impossible for the presiding priest to know whether or not they're excommunicated. Now, it is not in any way impossible for anyone in this forum to know that the likes of Biden and Peolsi and a host of others have never recanted their pro-abortion and other culture of death stands that defy Church Teaching, so it's absolutely absurd to say that the presiding priest can't be sure where they stand and should err on the side of allowing them to partake of communion.
All the focus on the individual is an attempt to sidestep the issue. The issue isn't whether scum like Biden and Pelosi are in deep do do for presenting themselves. They've excommunicated themselves, they know it, they did it by openly defying Church teaching and brag about having done so. What do they care about theoretically being in even worse shape after they present themselves since they don't accept Church Dogma and Doctrine anyway? They know that from the point of view of anyone who is Catholic theyre in deep do do in more ways than one. They have no intention of changing their ways, are not sincere Catholics who care what the Church teaches or believe that God is going to ever do a thing to them. They're not Catholic, get that through you're heads, they once were, they are not now.
The whole issue of their receiving communion arises from their publicly and non many occasions denying Church teaching. The objective reality of the situation is that they only show up for communion as a way to give the finger to the Church to add insult to injury. Those are the facts. It's silly or avoiding reality to pretend there is any reason whatsoever for anyone to believe theyre secretly repented and are worthy to receive communion. The presiding priest who is responsible for making sure people in exactly the situtation these two are in, " . . . are not to be admitted to holy communion", shouldn't admit them. There's no reason to believe they've repented any more than there would be to believe some guy with a Pentagram tattoo on his forehead and "Satan is Lord" tattooed on his arm has repented and is a Catholic worthy to receive communion. Without it becoming public knowledge that they've repented they have to be refused because it's public knowledge that they have excommunicated themselves by openly supporting abortion among other things.
The presiding priest is obligated to err on the side of caution and refuse them communion or Canon 915 is null and void noise and a waste of ink to print. Likewise, the references to the penalties the priest can expect if he doesnt look over those presenting themselves and when he thinks some of those presenting themselves may be among those who, " . . . are not to be admitted to holy communion". Unless and until public figures like Pelosi and Biden very, very, publicly make it clear they no longer support abortion on demand, the ordination of women, queers marrying one another, and contraception, (for starters) just like they very publicly said they support those things no priest should permit them to receive. Canon 915 is clear and is written specifically to let the presiding preist know that people like Biden and Pelosi, " . . . are not to be admitted to holy communion". That's the rule and there's nothing contradicting that rule or making an exception saying they should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Either people who the clergy have reason to suspect are ineligible should be turned away, or it's absolutely dishonest and a shame on the Church to keep Canon 915 on the books when no priest is expected to abide by it. What, its a convenient rule they can use when they like and use against a priest that they can't find anything else on? Is it offically part of the smoke and mirrors Canon only included to impress the gullible? Thats what folks who argue its all up to the individual are boiling Canon 915 down to, a convenience for a Bishop who wants to find some reason to discipline a priest or a PR entry.
Anyone who publicly denies Church teaching is supposed to just as publicly state that they have repented and now accept Church Teaching before excommunication or interdict is lifted. Playing the, "how would the priest know" game doesn't float and IMHO is disingenuous.
I would love to know how the big-wigs are thinking.
My fantasy, if I were pope would be to contact the BP’s of Wilmington. Delaware, Maryland, Arlington, DC, and San Francisco (and whoever Sebelius’s bishop is.) I'd make sure they were all on board and ready to discipline any clergy that resisted. And then I'd wait for the HHS mandate to work its way out.
Then, however the HHS thing broke, I'd send a formal letter to each of the bishops, probably through a nuncio — hand-delivered. And on an agreed upon date, hammer down, reserving lifting of the excommunication to their bishops if the HHS breaks our way and to the Holy See if it breaks the wrong way.
To ME, there is a scandal at this point. And we're out there organizing religious freedom demonstrations and such. We need some backup from the hierarchy.
Both my Mom and Dad said the letter said future children would go to hell, I have some papers from my Dad in a box I should look as see if that letter is there.
Needless to say he never went back and my Mom, said she would never consider Catholicism.
“readmission”, hum, my Dad took it as excommunication.
“It is not possible for the Vatican or the bishops to publicly excomminicate all the silly apostate Catholics who endorse anti-life policies that are completely contrary to the Catholic doctrines....”
Because that would include all Catholics who voted for Obama and those, recently surveyed, who do not oppose same-sex “marriage”.
In the latter category, 54% did not oppose SSM.
Oh, it IS excommunication. But not all excommunication is a “life-sentence,” and in fact even the excommunicate can receive communion if they’re dying.
Usually excommunications and interdicts have conditions for being readmitted to the Sacraments.
“....and his future children were all going to hell.”
I am sure that is NOT what the letter stated.
All I can say, is what my parents said and it was something they mentioned on occasion their whole lives.
As I said it was 1945.
Yes. Excommunicate them both, with extreme prejudice.
what does the word “declared “ mean in the relevant canons?
"They (Mexican Church leaders) did nothing new, surprising or arbitrary. They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church... which expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment (of life)".
Under Church law, someone who knowingly does or backs something which the Church considers a grave sin, such as abortion, inflicts what is known as "automatic excommunication" on themselves.".
making it crystal clear there is such a thing as automatic excommunication people bring on themselves. So, it really doesn't matter what declared means. Unless, of course, your argument is that Pope Benedict XVI was wrong and automatic excommunication isn't really the same as someone being excommunicated by formal declaration.
In 2007, now Pope Francis wrote, we should commit ourselves to Eucharistic coherence, that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortions, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.
Both Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have described politicians, parliamentarians, and others who facilitate abortion in some way as an identifiable, distinct, class of persons in the eyes of the Church.
Both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis say this entire class of persons meet the criteria to be excommunicated and have in fact already excommunicated themselves. This entire class of persons, then, ". . . are not to be admitted to holy communion", therefore it can be argued that this entire, identifiable, self-identifying, class of persons are all already under interdict.
Furthermore, what "declared" means is irrelevant because Canon 915 says, "Those upon whom the penalty of Excommunication or interdict have been imposed or declared and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin . . .", not only "those upon whom the penalty of excommunication has been declared . . .". No formal action on the part of the Church is needed when someone very publicly, ". . . does or backs something which the Church considers a grave sin . . .", especially when that person is a member of a clearly identified class of persons, a self-identified, voluntary, member of that clearly identified class of persons, very public persons at that, who the Church has identified as having automatically excommunicated themselves.
They are public persons, they go on record as obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin, they make public speeches advocating manifest grave sin, no formal declaration by the Church is required when someone publicly, very publicly, obviously declares them self excommunicated by the standard of Canon 915.
The only time what "declared" means mattered was when these individuals declared their own excommunication.
In response to a question from a Mexican reporter Pope Benedict said
In 2007, now Pope Francis wrote,
Banning the person from receiving communion is because they have excommunicated themselves.
and, the bishops have a lot of lee-way in their own dioceses....
Second, I do not think that my argument is disingenuous, neither is my motivation. My own personal background in this is a conversation with a Dominican after that priest who denied communion to an "out" and in his face lesbian was disciplined. After that I read some articles. I am presenting what I read.
Third. Latae sententiae is, arguably, different from "declared." When a law puts in a modifier it suggests a distinction between the thing as modified and another instance of the thing without that modifier.
Fourth. "Declaration" is, so to speak, binary. A thing is either declared (and promulgated) or not. (And right there, with the addition of the IMHO implied "promulgated" we have to two-element "truth table".) But with respect to " others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" we have two matters of judgment, obstinacy and manifestness, of which both would seem to be necessary. Since they are matters of judgment, the question ceases to be a slam dunk.
Fifth, I dispute the contention that I put myself in a position where I am calling Pope Benedict wrong or mendacious. You write:
Unless, of course, your argument is that Pope Benedict XVI was wrong and automatic excommunication isn't really the same as someone being excommunicated by formal declaration.I think that latae sententiae ("automatic") excommunication DOES differ from excommunication which comes with a declaration or the obstinacy and manifestness discussed above. If not (I suggest), they would not have used those words. If the canon makes the distinction, then the interpreter of the canon must make the distinction or show -- by argument -- how it is not really a distinction. But the DEFAULT interpretation has to be IMHO that they used the words on purpose.
They differ, I argue, precisely in the matter of who enforces and how they enforce. The obligation on the excommunicate person does NOT differ, and the sin committed when he communicates is the same in kind (if different in gravity) in either case.
So when the Pope -- or the beggar in the street -- OBSERVES that someone is excommunicate, that observation is not the same as a declaration. I can observe (and have observed) that Sebelius, Pelosi, and Biden are excommunicate, and would argue cheerfully (given enough coffee or, after five, bourbon) to that effect. But that accurate observation is distinct from any observation concerning who should enforce the excommunication and how it should be enforced. They are simply two different questions.
I think a formal declaration, possibly including specifics about how the excommunication is to be enforced and -- for my money the real acid test -- who can lift it, is overdue. But our Lord delays his coming in patience, and it may be well for the Holy See to wait until every opportunity and then some has been given for some obvious repentance on the part of these scandalous, contumacious, and obstinate sinners.
But I don't see how there is a delict on anybody's part in administering the sacrament to these people -- yet. I am glad that it's not my call and I bear in mind that those without authority often question, sometimes correctly, the courage and responsibility of those with authority. But that is between them and God.
Finally, though the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and though the Church is Christ's body, still, in their frequent -- and frequently distressing -- reliance on subsidiarity, I think the canons reveal to those who search a deep trust in the true shepherd of souls. It may SEEM namby-pamby to hold off on the imposition of an interdict or the enforcement of excommunication. But I suggest it may be, at least partially, a matter of giving God time to work on the arrogant and unrepentant.
What they did, sets a very, very bad example to those Catholics who have not gone to confession first and in a special, in this this country.
This de faco agreement exists due to both cowardice, and due to a great many priests who know idea that wisdom is the better part of valor. Wisdom dictates that it's easier to claim you're taking a pastoral approach than to explain why a Bishop doesn't back up a priest who is very clearly only obeying Canon Law when they refuse some people communion.
I wasn't aware that calling them as I see them was considered the "take no prisoners" style of advocacy. I'm sorry you feel offended. I should have qualified the use of "disingenuous" as "more often than not disingenuous" so you did not feel like I was singling you out..
if the bishops defy the pope are they not also in defiance of church teachings and hence should be defrocked.....didn’t that happen when the latin mass was replaced and one bishop continued to use ‘the old mass’????
defy, yes. But, as I said, remember, we see things only from our country — why would the Pope need to know who Pelosi is for instance?
because Pelosi has been a major leader in the democratic congresses of the past. are you suggesting that perhaps the pope is sooooo isolated that he does not who the major players are around the world???