Story here. This is not official Church policy, it was the action of a single unnamed priest at a mass for Catholic businessmen. Still, that this attitude exists at all in the ranks of the clergy portends a dismal repeat of what we saw in 2004. Especially this bit further down:
Shame on the RCC for even tolerating this.
:rolleyes:
Amazingly, the Pope does not leap into action, cape billowing behind him as he zooms within seconds to halt evildoers across the world. Amazingly, too, the Church is not quite capable of keeping perfect discipline in a diverse group of millions of clergy spread out across the world.
I know. We’re just scum, aren’t we?
I hope the priest in question is also denying communion to supporters of George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, because of their support of the much greater sin of the unjust war in Iraq. In fact, I suspect it would be very hard to find a candidate in the US who is in line with the Catholic Church’s teachings on all issues.
I wouldn’t mind so much if it were just a rogue asshole of a priest, but there’s an archbishop in this!
My guess is that The Pope isn’t exactly a micromanager, and that a local *bishop *holds the responsibility for having a talk with this priest about overstepping his bounds.
I understand that the Church actually does stand for some things, and being anti-abortion is one of them, and it’s actually okay with me that they make that known and enforce their own rules about who can receive communion. But I still think that in this case, it was the wrong call.The person denied is not himself working to promote abortion or abortion rights (he is, in fact, as anti-abortion as the next neocon), but politically endorsing someone who is pro-choice.
According to the quoted portion of “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” written by Catholic bishops : “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, **if **the voter’s intent is to support that position.” (bolding mine) It reads to me, and to whomever wrote that article, that “The “if” phrase in that carefully negotiated sentence suggests that Catholics can support pro-choice candidates, provided the purpose of their vote is not to promote abortion.” So it does look as if he is *not *in a state of grave sin and should have been allowed to partake in Communion.
BrainGlutton, the completely separate request of the archbishop that Kathleen Sibelius not participate in Communion is a much better and more clear cut example of a just decision in line with the Church’s position, IMHO. She has worked to publicly support abortion rights, which, to me, makes her a valuable leader, and to the Church places her in a state of Grave Sin. While I disagree with the churches position on abortion (and that’s one of about four reasons I’m not a Roman Catholic), I actually applaud them for avoiding hypocrisy and enforcing their own theological policies in that case. What’s the point of a Church, or any organization, having principals if they aren’t enforced?
Giles, is the RCC against the Iraq War? I have no idea, to be honest. They aren’t intrinsically anti-war, though. Supporting a war doesn’t automatically put you in a state of Grave Sin, AFAIK.
The unnamed priest in question here appears to have made a mistake.
As for the separate question regarding Governor Sibelius and Communion, my opinion is largely in agreement with that expressed by WhyNot.
I don’t think either John Paul II or Benedict XVI has spoken ex cathedra on the issue, but both have been strong critics of the US intervention in Iraq: cite.
I think you are right about that.
It’s an interesting question for American Catholics, because so many of them are historically Democrat, and because they believe that the Democratic party stands for many of the social justice causes that are important to Catholics. I see a sharp divide these days between the “pro-life” Catholics who tend to vote Republican and the “peace and justice” Catholics who tend to vote Democrat. I think many of the P&Js are what you would think of as anti-abortion personally, but pro-choice politically, and some are people who just don’t consider it to be their voting issue, because they think that there are some issues that are simply more important. But either way you go politically, there is a certain amount of betrayal of Catholic values.
I feel basically the same way about this. On the other hand, the Church is certainly not a monolith, and one of the most important roles of a priest is to be a spiritual advisor. There are many, many Catholics who live in what the Church would consider a state of grave sin, but who have understanding priests who help them come to terms with this within themselves, and with the Church. I don’t see a problem with this, as to my mind, the Church needs to be there for all its flock. Choosing a spiritual advisor is like choosing a doctor. The Church would like you to think they are all the same, but they aren’t, and you have to be sure you have a good one. Priests are just men, after all. They all have their own opinons and personalities. Some are a little nutty, just like you find in any group. Some are truly wonderful people. So my first reaction when I hear a story like this is that the guy needs to find a new priest.
No, it doesn’t. The Church believes in justified wars. This particular war, though, the previous pope came out against. But I don’t know how “official” that was.
Archbishops, no less than priests, can do just about whatever they please. And by and large an archbishop is just the same as a bishop, with a an “arch-” in front of the title.
It does not go Priest-> Bishop -> Archbishop -> Cardinal. In fatc, the Church’s heirarchy has no straight logic to it and just kind of happened over the years depending on hw good the roads were and how large an area congealed over time.
Right. And as a Catholic trying to be faithful I am obligated to give those opinions a good listen and think about them. But because they are simply the opinions of the pope, and aren’t statements made ex cathedra, I can disagree with some or all of the arguments if my own process of inquiry leads me that way.
The Church certainly isn’t dictatorial in this regard.
I do think there’s an element of hypocrisy in how the Catholic Church tends to “remember” it’s pro-life and start denying communion to politicians in election years.
Hold it. This guy is a vigorous *foe *of abortion, but can’t take communion because he is an Obama supporter, and Obama is pro-choice? That’s bullshit. What a piece of work the RCC is.
Oh yeah. I forgot. It’s only the RCC when it does something good. Otherwise, it’s just a “rogue” priest, or some such crap.
Do all Obama supporters get denied communion? Or just those who are politically high profile?
Pope Benedict (back when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger) led a commission that studied the moral issues and concluded:
Said priest just comitted a big no-no. In fact, he’s likely to get punished for it… or at least as far as the church goes to severely. It might take some time and it probably will be quiet.
No, just those who visit grandstanding clergy.
Frankly, it happens pretty seldom in the first place. The archbishop here in Washington, Donald Wuerl (who used to be in Pittsburgh and is a guy I respect a lot) out and out said he wouldn’t do it unless provoked greatly, since that extreme step might place that politician outside of a place where he can reach him or her with his teaching.
There are a very small number of bishops who make public a policy to deny communion. They are a minority, to say the least. Individual priests may deny communion at their discretion - though this happens pretty seldom as well. Far more common are individual Catholics who refrain from taking communion on their own since they are aware that they are in a state of sin for some reason and cannot in good faith take the sacrament.
Yup. And it’s not just these political issues…every once in a while you hear about a guy who denies someone communion because he knows something about them on a personal level…for instance, that they’re living with someone without benefit of matrimony. As I said, some are a little nutty, or decide they’re just going to take a stand. It’s not necessarily endorsed by the hierarchy. They usually get a talking-to and it all goes away. I don’t think the priest is supposed to “police” who gets communion and who doesn’t, but rather they are supposed to leave it to the conscience of the individual. If the priest really has an issue with it, they should attempt to talk to the person personally and privately and provide spiritual guidance, but certainly not embarrass them in public.
Maybe the priest will be willing to pay the taxes when the RCC gets it’s tax free status revoked for politiking.
I’m sure you would agree that, so long as the Church does not advocate voting for or against individual candidates or parties, it is perfectly legitimate for the Church to take stands on moral and even political questions, right?
So this grandstanding clergyman denied communion to other Obama supporters in his parish as well? Cite?
Or is it that the media only reports on it then? My sister-in-law is among the many Catholics I know who are officially denied Communion because they’re divorced and remarried. Her priest has talked with her and she does not take Communion as a result. She’s been warned that* if* she goes up, she will be refused, and so she stays in her seat. She still goes to church weekly and pays for her daughter to go to Catholic school and considers herself more devout than your average bear. She’s quite upset about the whole thing, actually, but for some reason can’t get an annulment of her first marriage to make it all okay. No newspaper will publish her story though, I’m sure.