And that includes you, Deacon! (you know who you are ;-D)
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
Posted on 07/06/2004 12:31:01 PM PDT by areafiftyone
In a private memorandum, top Vatican prelate Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told American bishops that Communion must be denied to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion.
While never mentioning Sen. John Kerry by name, the memo implicitly aims at the pro-choice Catholic Massachusetts senator and presidential candidate.
But the ban is broad and includes all other pro-abortion Catholic politicians who are defying the church's ban on abortion.
According the the Culture of Life Foundation, which obtained a copy of the confidential document, the Cardinal began by stressing the serious nature of receiving Communion and the need for each person to make “a conscious decision” regarding their worthiness based on “the Church’s objective criteria.”
But the Cardinal adds that it is not only the responsibility of the pro-abortion politicians such as Kerry to make a judgment about their worthiness to receive Communion.
It is also up to those distributing Communion to deny the sacrament to those in conflict with the Church's prohibition of abortion and the duty of office holders to oppose the procedure.
“Apart from an individual’s judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin.”
If a politician such as Kerry “still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it, ” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.
He added that such as denial does not mean that the minister of Communion is judging the politician’s soul but is a reflection that he is in a state of obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin.
“Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s
subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”
The document also address the issues of the death penalty and war, contrasting these issues and with abortion.
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia ... There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia,” Ratzinger wrote.
The memo was one of the subjects of an interim report by a task force of seven bishops established to address the Communion question.
The topic was also addressed by the American Bishops during their mid-June meeting in Dallas.
At that meeting the Bishops approved a document titled “Catholics in Political Life” which while it had harsh words for pro-abortion leaders, did not make specific recommendations on whether or not they should be denied Communion instead leaving the decision to individual Bishops.
Implicit in what the the Cardinal was saying, however, is that the bishops are required to state unambiguously that pro-abortion politicians must be denied Holy Communion, thus removing the decision from the bishops' discretion.
If a Catholic or any other faithful politician has a conflict between their religion and public policy , I'd say they're in the wrong biz.
If there's no conflict, a politician is either being true to themselves (and presented themselves appropriately to the voters in the first place, like "I'm against abortion"), or they simply have lied about their faith to get into office a la Cash-and-Kerry.
And that includes you, Deacon! (you know who you are ;-D)
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
Kerry won't campaign in Texas.
Which religion does not respect:
THOU SHALT NOT KILL!
"Should a catholic politician listen to his constituents or his church when it comes to matters of public policy?"
The question should be: "Can a politician be catholic and still support abortion?"
The church is only pointing out his hypocricy on this issue by telling him that it is time to make up his mind, either he is catholic or he is pro-abortion.
If Kerrey wants to run as a pro-abortion policitian then that's fine but he should not also be allowed to run as a member of a religion that finds abortion to be irreconcilable with it's faith.
It all comes down to "You cannot serve two masters, John Boy"
IMO, you will find large numbers of people who say "I could never personally have an abortion because I think it's murder. If someone else chooses, it's between her and her God. I would never force my morality on others."
OR
"I support abortion only in cases of rape or incest. And, well, if the mother's health is at risk."
You'd be surprised how many "pro-choice" voters spew either or both lines.
You seem to be confusing the role of a legislator and an executive. The legislator who makes laws must follow his conscience. An executive who executes those laws must follow the law. If his conscience prevents him from doing his job, he should resign. It's the job of electors to determine if a lesgislator is compatible with their beliefs.
Leave out religion for a moment. Suppose a politician believes that abortion is murder. Do you really want him to create laws that strengthen abortion? I wouldn't be confortable with someone who so blithely sets aside his ethics.
BTW - It seems to me that an essential part of being a Catholic is submitting to the authority of the Church. A voter should keep that in mind before voting for any Catholic politician.
Why is that different from any Christians? Are you accusing other Christians of putting the world before God?
Kerry to convert. Will this be a flip-flop or a flop flip.
Well said! Why is that so hard to understand.
So if a majority of voters want a politician to seize the property of the wealthy and redistribute it to them, that's okay, beause. ``a politican should listen to his constituents.''
I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that protestants believed that individual conscience was more important than the authority of their church (if there is such a thing).
Even if what you said is true, why would it make a difference if the stated person was listening to his Bible or his Church? You either agree with his position or you don't?
Ping!
If one's religious faith does not inform his official positions on social issues, what DOES inform those positions? On the issue of abortion, there are (essentially) two positions, pro-choice and pro-life. If Kerry is pro=life, what is it that has led to him taking that position? I will wait for a response, but I suspect that it is a wet finger in the wind.
We pray that all these pro-abortion politicians will get themselves unelected!
Ratzinger is like the administrative assistant to the Pope. I don't believe he is of pope making material.
You said: I think it is entirely principled for a Catholic politician, for example, who is personally opposed to the death penalty, to sign one into law and faithfully impliment it in light of the declared will of the majority of citizens in his state and the legislature.
Kerry is running for president of the United States. What is the "declared will of the majority" in the US? More important, what about leadership? Should not a leader take a position and seek to persuade others, rather than simply wetting his finger and taking the position of what he perceives is the majority?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.