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 Churchs 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 individuals 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 politicians 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 persons
subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the persons 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.
No he hasn't. This "memo" was published in an Italian newspaper. It has not been released publicly by the Vatican; we don't even know for certain if Ratzinger is the author of it.
If he chose to speak publicly and release this document publicly as head of the Congregation for the Faith, then it might influence the American bishops.
As it is, the bishops have voted to allow individual bishops to make their own decisions about refusal of the Eucharist.
Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the persons subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the persons public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.... the objective situation of sin being the explicit or constructive intent of the legislator/voter to abort.
Prefect (head) of the Congregation for the Faith. He is in charge of resolving doctrinal issues.
Is he a possible "next Pope
No. He's 78.
More proof the Vatican wants Kerry in office. They've wanted Bush out ever since he pushed for the war in Iraq. Now they have a chance to make Kerry look like a hero for defying them.
Thanks, Sinkspur.
Good info.
Wait, are you trying to say the Pope doesn't have control of his Cardinals and what they may or may not send out as memos?
The whole complaint against Kerry is that he is defying the Vatican. Are you suggesting this Cardinal is doing so as well?
As opposed to any other religious denomination? Either you believe in something or you don't. But don't identify yourself as a member of a group and simultaneously do everything possible to spit on the tenants of said group. And then have the nerve to complain the group doesn't hold you in good stead.
No, you don't have to worry. Most Democrats who call themselves Catholic are apostates. If receiving Communion was that important to John Kerry, he wouldn't have divorced his first wife, married the second without benefit of annulment, then vote down bills outlawing partial birth abortion. His pro choice votes are in direct violation of Church teaching. So he is publicly saying he's Catholic, in fact using it as a political tool, while standing there publicly violating Church teaching. The Church has every right to refuse him Communion, and while they're at it, they need to shovel Teddy out of the family pew permanently.
It comes down to this: do you want to be a politician or a Catholic who follows his/her religion?
I'd like to see the Bell, Book and Candle ritual personally.
Anything which makes things rougher for Kerry and the "Swimmer" makes me happy.
If you can't abide by the rules of an organization - leave.
Maybe they should start their own church - the Church of the "If-It-Feels-Good-do-It" Assembly of Contemporary Hedonists.
?......When is control,.....CONTROL?
(private vs. public?)
Should say, "Private Memo States Catholic Politicians Should Be Banned from Communion", as the memo does not specifically mention Kerry.
Whatever their intents are would be one thing, but the headline is inaccurate. In all fairness and exactness.
Kinda ironic, JFK had to show he's wasn't a papist pawn of rome and jfk has to show he is one.
So, Guiliani and Pataki are barred too?
Umm,
How about some perspective?
I mean, the current law allows, nation wide, that a medical practitioner can take a scissors and jam them into the brainstem of a term (full grown), totally awake, unanesthetized, unsedated, fetus (or baby).
The fetus or baby can feel it. No question. The baby also feels the next step, that of a suction catheter sucking out its brains from the base of its skull. There is no anesthesia for the fetus. The mother, yes she gets regional anesthesia and sedation. But next to nothing for the baby or fetus. Whatever crosses over to the placenta, then to the baby, which is a negligible amount.
There is no screaming of the fetus. This is because the sinister practitioners of this satanic ritual now do it feet first: The baby's screams are muffled by the mother's uterus and birth canal. More correctly, it can never really draw a breath to make a sound. The baby is withdrawn after it is dead. No troublesome screams.
This occurs very frequently in the US; maybe a hundred a day, who knows. The feds prohibit any statistics be kept.
Overall, abortions of all kinds, early to mid to late, are about as common as births.
So the odds of a child nowadays in the US to be born rather than curretted alive and sucked out into a disposal, are about even.
And you were worried about what again?
The whole notion of "personal opposition" is idiotic, because it presumes that there is a line that divides what is morally objectionable from what should or should not be permitted under the law.
Remember -- we're talking about an elected legislator or executive here, not a judge. A judge is obligated to render decisions based on the law, not on what he thinks the law ought to say. A legislator or executive, on the other hand, is not bound by such limitations -- because the laws in question haven't yet been passed.
In Catholic doctrine there is no such thing as a half-@ssed approach to government. If someone tells me that he is "personally opposed" to the death penalty but is willing to sign a capital punishment bill into law, then I can only conclude one of two things: 1) he isn't really "personally opposed" to the death penalty at all, or 2) he doesn't think the issue is terribly important in the first place, and therefore his "personal opposition" is about as relevant as his preference for a favorite dessert.
Hope so.
bump
Ratzinger got a lot of mentions but not nearly enough votes back in 1978 when the two John Pauls were elected. He had been Archbishop of Munich until '77 when Pope Paul made him a cardinal. So, he had some consideration back then, but his time has passed.
has anyone seen ted kennedy taking communion
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.