Pro-Abortion Catholics Versus Church, Communion Battle Continues

LifeNews.com ^ | May 2, 2004 | Steven Ertelt

[nickcarraway]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The battle between Catholics politicians who support abortion and the pro-life Catholic Church continues. A New Jersey bishop says his state's pro-abortion governor is not entitled to communion, an Indiana Catholic school has rescinded an invitation for that state's pro-abortion governor to speak, and the Democratic leader in the U.S. House says she will continue taking the sacrament despite her pro-abortion views.

Last week, Most Rev. Joseph Galante, the incoming leader of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, said Governor Jim McGreevey can't receive communion. Galante cited McGreevey's position in favor of abortion as one of the reasons.

Galante said he felt obligated to arrive at his position because the public becomes confused when the Catholic Church doesn't hold Catholic politicians accountable for their records.

"I'd give him a blessing (instead)," Galante told reporters about what would happen if McGreevey presented himself at his church. In his case, he can't go to communion."

Galante's comments come just weeks after Trenton Bishop John Smith declared that McGreevey was "not a devout Catholic" because of his political record, which includes a push for millions of dollars to fund an embryonic stem cell research initiative that would involve the destruction of human embryos. The Catholic Church opposes such research because it destroys human lives.

Meanwhile, the high school alma matter of Indiana governor Joe Kernan has withdrawn an invitation to speak at commencement.

South Bend's St. Joseph High School withdrew the invitation at the request of Bishop John M. D'Arcy of the Catholic Diocese of Forty Wayne-South Bend.

D'Arcy told the Associated Press on Friday that the school's teachers believed Kernan's speech would contradict the moral values the school teaches and wants students to appreciate.

"I am in full agreement with these teachers," D'Arcy said.

Though he backs legal abortion, a Kernan spokeswoman said the governor had never voted on the issue.

D'Arcy's actions come just days after the University of St. Francis in Fort Wayne told Dr. Nancy Snyderman that it no longer wants her to give the college's commencement address.

The college says Snyderman "refers to abortion as the 'deliberate removal of fetal tissue' and lists various types of abortion methods as valid options." She is also accused of promoting the abortion of one or more babies in cases of multiple pregnancies.

Finally, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on Thursday that she will continue to take communion despite objections from the Vatican.

"I fully intend to receive Communion, one way or another," Pelosi said last week at a press conference. "That's very important to me."

"I was raised in a very devout, Italian Catholic home, and my views, my pro-choice views, are not shared by every member of my family, so I know this issue well," Pelosi said. "I'm certainly concerned when the church comes together and says it's going to sanction people in public office for speaking their conscience and what they believe."

Her comments come just days after a leading Vatican official said Catholic priests ought to deny communion to pro-abortion elected officials.

Pro-life Catholics continue to be chagrined that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, is taking communion at his home church in Boston, the Paulist Center, despite his strongly pro-abortion views.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[nickcarraway]

ping

[sgtbono2002]

Nancy --Honey--you can slime your way up to the Communion rail and receive Communion , but all you are doing is adding to your sin, It isnt doing you any good. If ya break the rules then you are out of the game in the eyes of God, If you are too stupid to realise that you arent a Catholic anyway.

[leprechaun9]

"I was raised in a very devout, Italian Catholic home,..." Pelosi

She obviously defines moral law with the same ease with which she makes a mockery of civil law. It's murder STUPID!

[leprechaun9]

Trenton Bishop John Smith

Proud to say that he was a high school classmate!

[Betis70]

Not so long ago, Pelosi would have been excommunicated. Kerry and Kennedy too.

[grellis]

I guess someone should tell all the CINOs they are welcome in the Lansing diocese.

I just could not be more disgusted than I have been today.

[enuu]

These pro-death "Catholics" should re-read (or read, perhaps they have never opened a Bible) John Chapter 6 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.

A Christian Catholic is responsible to be in a state of Grace to receive the Eucharist. If you are "pro-choice" not only in your personal views, but by actively supporting the murder of unborn babies by use of political power or financial support, you are in a state of grave mortal sin and may not present yourself for Communion. This is not a political issue, that's the case for any Catholic.

As for the priest, he has a responsibility to protect the Blessed Sacrament from defilement and therefore must withold It from a person whom he knows for certain to be in a state of mortal sin.

The Eucharist, for Catholics, is not a "symbol" of Christ; upon Consecration, the "body and blood, soul and divinity" of Christ are present. This is a Divine Mystery not a symbolic rite, or right!

In matters concerning life and death, a close look at the doctrine of the Church shows remarkable flexibility on issues such as war (just war), death penalty (not always wrong in certain cases), murder (self-defense sometimes OK), and even end-of-life issues. But the one thing that is always wrong is abortion. Can anyone Catholic, Christian or Atheist, look at an ultrasound and truly deny in their hearts that it's a baby? And certainly you cannot be a Catholic in a state of grace if you support abortion. It has nothing to do with separating church and state.

The church has a responsibility to itself and to the Blessed Sacrament to preserve the integrity of the Magisterium, and of the Sacraments. The church is not interfering in matters of state at all, it is simply asking its members to conform to the beliefs and rules of the church. Some of these members happen to be politically prominent, but whether one is or not, if you cannot embrace the doctrine of the sanctity of innocent life, you're not a Catholic.

[nickcarraway]

What happened today?

[supercat]

But the one thing that is always wrong is abortion.

I thought that abortion was deemed acceptable in cases where it was the only way to prevent a bona fide danger of death or severe bodily harm to the mother (severe bodily harm meaning things like blindness, loss of limb, or other such injury). Or, to put it another way, abortion is homicide, but not all homicide is wrong.

[Qwinn]

You're essentially correct in that abortion goes under the same rules as any homicide.

That said, I never heard of a "severe bodily harm" clause. In fact, I'm checking my copy of the Catechism here, and it does not even specifically address an exemption for the life of the mother. HOWEVER, given as the entire matter is put forth in the context of "The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual", it would and does follow (and has been cited as such in less formal declarations on the subject) that the mother's life certainly counts as well. In the extremely rare cases that it would be a choice between one or the other, the Church would, I am sure, in no way attribute sin to a mother who was doing nothing more than protecting her own inalieanable right to life.

In -practice-, here is the hard and fast rule - you cannot undergo an operation which has as part of it's purpose the death of the child. If you are undergoing an operation designed to save the mother's life, and the baby dies as a result, that is a tragic loss but it does not constitute a sin for the mother to have chosen the operation. It is only an operation which has as part of it's purpose the death of the child that is ruled against.

Qwinn

[supercat]

I'll admit that for some reason I don't quite fathom, few writings on abortion, from either side, recognize "severe bodily harm" as the standard. Nonetheless, since it is a normal standard used for homicides in general (i.e. in determining "self-defense") it would seem like consistency should allow it for abortion as well.

That having been said, there aren't a whole lot of cases which would qualify under a 'danger of severe bodily harm' standard that wouldn't also qualify under a 'danger of death' standard, but such cases do exist.

On a related note, what would be the proper way of handling a woman who, when eight weeks pregnant, discovered that she had cancer which might be cured with immediate chemo but would probably be untreatable if chemo were delayed by five months?

[Qwinn]

I -believe- the Church would not have a problem with that. The real intent of the therapy would not be to harm the child, it would be to save the mother's life, and as I said, that is the test.

I could be wrong there though. And we shouldn't take the word of any individual bishops or such on this, since it's possible to find right up to fully pro-choice bishops if you look hard enough. On a note like that, I would defer only to the Catechism to find out the Church's position, and from a reading of that I would assume that such a case would pass the test.

Of course, a woman who chose to continue the pregnancy at risk to her own life would be -greatly- revered, but I don't think that sin would be attributed to one who did not.

Qwinn

[gbcdoj]

In the extremely rare cases that it would be a choice between one or the other, the Church would, I am sure, in no way attribute sin to a mother who was doing nothing more than protecting her own inalieanable right to life.

The Catholic Church teaches that it is always impermissible to kill the fetus in any circumstance whatsoever, because the unborn child has no guilt for whatever danger it causes the mother:

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae §57)

The rationale is that it's only legitimate to kill someone who is guilty of some crime - the baby doesn't have the use of reason and so can't be guilty.

[Qwinn]

I disagree with your interpretation. Take the case of the chemotherapy scenario that Supercat proposed.

From the catechism (2271): "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law".

Your own quote uses the words "direct abortion". I do not believe that chemotherapy in the above case could be described as "abortion willed either as an end or a means". A woman who desperately wanted her baby, but also knew that she would die and her child left motherless if she didn't undergo chemo, would certainly not be "willing" an abortion. Now certainly if there were any other options available, she should choose those (and if she passed other options up that wouldn't harm the child for ones that would, that -would- be wrong), but if chemo were her only hope, that would not be a willful abortion.

The Catechism is very clear that the State must rule on the EQUALITY of life. Your position would dictate that the child's life is always, without question, held in higher regard than the life of the mother. That would not be equality.

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law." In your case, you would be depriving the mother of the right to seek medical treatment to save her own life.

At best, I would say that the Catechism is not entirely clear on that specific issue, in the very rare cases when it is a one-or-the-other situation. While I do not doubt that on the basis of innocence the Church would probably be more impressed with a mother who committed such a self-sacrifice, I do not think they would go as far as to attach "grave and mortal sin" to such an act of self-preservation, so much so that it would entail excommunication latae sententiae, "by the very commission of the offense", as any other circumstance for abortion would.

Qwinn

[Arthur McGowan]

Of course, a woman who chose to continue the pregnancy at risk to her own life would be -greatly- revered, but I don't think that sin would be attributed to one who did not.

A few days from now, Dr. Gianna Molla, a woman who chose not to have her uterus removed even though it was cancerous, in order to protect the life of her baby, will be canonized in Rome. Her daughters and her husband will be present.

[gbcdoj]

I was mainly responding to the following:

I thought that abortion was deemed acceptable in cases where it was the only way to prevent a bona fide danger of death or severe bodily harm to the mother (severe bodily harm meaning things like blindness, loss of limb, or other such injury). Or, to put it another way, abortion is homicide, but not all homicide is wrong.

It is acceptable that the child be killed as a totally unintended side effect of a treatment to save the life of the mother (ie. chemotherapy). On the other hand even if the child were to pose a fatal danger to the mother (for instance, an ectopic pregnancy), it is not licit to kill him in self-defense, even if the intent is to save the life of the mother.

[Qwinn]

"Canonized"? Isn't that the term for being sainted? WOW. I have never heard of anyone being sainted so soon after their death. Are you sure that's the term you meant to use? Of course, I always get confused between "canonized", "beatified", etc., so I could be wrong.

Hey, I don't think I do too badly in my understanding of Church teaching for an agnostic :)

Qwinn

[Arthur McGowan]

Blessed Gianna (soon to be Saint Gianna) died in 1960. Mother Teresa is already canonized, only five years after her death. So Gianna is not so remarkable for speed!