AMEN
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.
**A Catholic politician should stand up and tell his constituents exactly what he believes, and if they don't like it they'll find someone else to do the job.**
Santorum and Brownback are excellent examples of this! Stand up Catholic politicians.
The article you posted about potentail papal successors is few years old and completely outdated. Cardinal Lucas moreira Neves died some time ago while cardinals Etchegaray, Martini, Schotte, Laghi and Gantin have all retired from their positions and are definitely no longer in the runing. Actually of those mentioned in the article I think only Arinze, Schoenborn and Tettamanzi (who in the meantime succeded Martini as Archbishop of Milan) could be considered viable candidates.
Ignore my answer, I am wrong.
Your right. I wan't trying to insult non Catholics. The only difference is that in the first case you need to ask further about his interpretation of the bible, in the second, the Church makes it pretty clear what he believes (you can look it up in the catechism.)
There's an old joke - "What do you call a Catholic who follows his conscience instead of the churches teaching?"
"A protestant."
You still haven't presented a substantive difference to voters. A candidate believes what he believes and either you like it or you don't. Sure, there are plenty of candidates who don't believe in anything, but is that really better. I think that the Catholic thing is a red herring.
In this case the Church is making plain the fact that supporting abortion is a "grave matter" and that a person who does so runs the risk of eternal damnation. Kerrey or anyone else will not be able to avoid that just by joining a different church.
Maybe a Catholic can clarify a point for me. Is "excommunication" defined to be the denial of communion by the Church, as is suggested in the Church guidance being discussed here, or is it a more permanent expulsion from the Church?
Never thought of it that way! LOL!
In reality, Catholic candidates haven't, in general, to hew to the ``Catholic position'' anyway.
As an example: in 2003, 3 Catholics and one baptist were running for governor of California. The three Catholics were pro-abortion and the baptist was pro-life. So what does that mean? The baptist was remaining true to the position that baptist conventions had voted on, so wouldn't he be subject to the same scrutiny that you want voters to put Catholic candidates to? The Baptist convention voted against homosexual marriage, so should we all be weary of baptists, because the convention, ``told them what to do?'' And why should those three Catholic candidates be admired for going against there Church teaching? If they don't believe in it, why are they a member?
I don't follow this closely. My family is Catholic but I am actually a Quaker. It seems that it is very taboo to discus apparent successors amongst the clergy (especially the Cardinals), so I merely found the most recent article I could. Everything I have read over the last few years has indicated either an African or a return to the Italians. I personally think the next Pope may be French (the anti-pope?) but what do I know, that all comes from a couple of different prophecies I have read.
Ah, what a picture of the devil's imps.
MM
Yo're reading a lot into my aside which I hadn't intended. Suppose someone tells you they're an Episcopalean. What is their position on abortion? You don't know. They can be pro-life or pro-death and still be a faithful Episcopalean. Suppose they are a Catholic. Theh, they had better be pro-life, or they are an apostate, a hypocrite, or (most likely)both. While I might vote for a pro-abortion politician, I would never vote for a pro-abortion Catholic politician, because, in my opinion, they can't be trusted.
If you notice, in my original post, I stated the case of a non-religious anti-abortion pol. In the final analysis, it is an individual beliefs that are most important. Certainly, religion is an important clue to those beliefs.
You know why it is such a taboo to discuss the heir apparent? There is an old saying that "whoever comes to Conclave as a future Pope, leaves it as a cardinal". So if you want to be the next Pope, you pray that nobody mentiones your name. Of course there are exceptions to that rule. Cardinal Montini was widely recognized as personaly designated succesor to Pope John XXIII and he was indeed elected (as Paul VI).
Well, I guess in theory. I don't think Episcopaleans are supposed to be pro-abortion, even if many of them might be. And unfortunately many of the Catholics in the Senate and some who are governors are pro-abortion.
I don't think it's taboo, it's just bad form to speculate on someone's death. How would you like it if someone was speculating who would replace you on Free Republic, ``when you are gone.''
Sinky advises CM55 that 'we don't know for sure who wrote this memo...' and further advises that the Cardinal did not "order" that Kerry be denied Communion.
There are countervailing opinions, and Sinky well knows it.
One can weigh the authorship issue this way: Cdl. Ratzinger, back in early June, said "X" Cardinal McCarrick, a world-class political slimeball, then says that Ratzinger said "Y."
This is literally a life-and-death matter.
Cdl Ratzinger is not a happy camper about the lie told for US Catholics' consumption. Now what does he do?
One thing that is RARELY done is a direct face-to-face contradiction. That's just not the way to do it. So Ratzinger or one of his aides slips the memo to the press.
Not surprisingly, it's to the ITALIAN press--they can be trusted, unlike the US papers, to keep the source secret (remember in the USA, the Press hates the Church more than they hate GWBush.)
Ratzinger has allowed the Press to call McCarrick a liar.
Another way to look at this: Cui Bono? (Who benefits?)
Ratzinger is defending some pretty significant core concepts here: the sacredness of the Eucharist AND the question of promoting abortion. Releasing the memo is for the benefit of orthodox Catholics--not for Ratzinger, who doesn't live or vote here---not for Bush (for the same reason)--and certainly not for McCarrick who is now obviously a liar and a hypocrite.
Only the Truth benefits--thus we can be even more certain in our belief that it is INDEED a genuine document.
As to Part Two of your query: You can see that the document does NOT name Kerry (nor David Obey of Wisconsin, nor Schwarzenegger, nor Giuliani, nor Kennedy...)
So no, R. did NOT order that Kerry be stiffed.
You are a blithering idiot.
What is so blithery about my idiocy? Where have I gone wrong?
The Vatican was upset by the war in Iraq, very much so. It doesn't want Bush returning to power.
So maybe it goes out of its way to give Kerry a chance to look like a hero to the general populace, drive away moderate Catholics, and energize fundamentalist Catholics (which are all ooutcomes the Catholic Church hierarchy wants).
What is so improbable about all of this?
Yup, and we already have that. Ever look at the Estate Tax?
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.