CARDINAL RATZINGER ORDERS KERRY COMMUNION BAN!

Newsmax ^ | 7/6/04

[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.

[johnb838]

Maybe they should start their own church - the Church of the "If-It-Feels-Good-do-It" Assembly of Contemporary Hedonists

That's called the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA). Ask the Gaybish

[BikerNYC]

As opposed to any other religious denomination?

No. But the power in that particular religious denomination appears to be in the hands of a foreign power to a greater degree than most other religious denominations.

Like I said, I am not arguing with the right of the religious denomination to do what it may in a case like this. Rather, I think the church is cutting off its nose to spite its face, as now people have to wonder if an office holder who belongs to that religious denomination will follow the will of the foreign power and not his constituents so as not to lose the right to participate in an important religious ritual that may, in his belief, lead the way to a more pleasant afterlife.

[xm177e2]

?......When is control,.....CONTROL?

(private vs. public?)

I would think if Ratzinger is setting policy, whether publicly or privately, he would have to be in line with the Pope.

[Mo1]

Johny doesn't care .. he'll just go church shopping

That or he'll get his VP to sue the church

[Polycarp IV]

FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"

---

[ Browse | Search | Topics | Post Article | My Comments ]

Click to scroll to commentary.

Highest Authorities in Vatican Back Denial of Communion to Pro-Abortion Politicians
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | July 5, 2004 | LifeSiteNews.com

Posted on 07/05/2004 10:53:52 PM EDT by Polycarp IV

Highest Authorities in Vatican Back Denial of Communion to Pro-Abortion Politicians

Cardinal McCarrick's ambiguous interpretation of Vatican position puzzles US Catholics

WASHINGTON, July 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In April, the Vatican's leading prelate on the Sacraments, Cardinal Francis Arinze, declared unequivocally that unambiguously pro-abortion politicians should be denied Holy Communion. Over the weekend it was revealed that Cardinal Ratzinger, who heads the most important congregation in the Vatican, told U.S. bishops in a letter that pro-abortion politicians, who will not alter their stand or abstain from communion after being instructed by church leaders, "must" be refused communion.

In April Cardinal Arinze said such a politician "is not fit" to receive Communion. "If they should not receive, then they should not be given," he said.

In the letter sent to Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: "Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist." He continued, "When 'these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,' and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, 'the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it'."

Cardinal McCarrick, who heads the U.S. Bishops task-force, looking into the issue of Catholics in political life, has recently, on two separate occasions, defended statements which seem to contradict or at least confuse what Vatican authorities have actually said on the issue of communion and Catholics who publicly support abortion.

McCarrick who has acknowledged that he is personally "uncomfortable" with denying Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, reacted to Cardinal Arinze's statements in April by suggesting that the Vatican Cardinal did not really mean what he said. Speaking with the National Catholic Reporter, McCarrick said of Cardinal Arinze, "I don't think it was his eminence's official opinion . . . The cardinal's position . . . was that . . . the United States should figure out what they ought to do." The odd contradiction caused some Catholic pro-life leaders to wonder, "since when did Cardinal McCarrick become Cardinal Arinze's press spokesman?"

With Cardinal Ratzinger's letter now publicly available, Cardinal McCarrick is left defending a questionable interpretation of yet another high Vatican Cardinal. At the Denver meeting of U.S. Bishops on June 15 McCarrick commented on Ratzinger's letter. While Cardinal Ratzinger makes it clear in his letter that pro-abortion politicians "must" be denied communion, Cardinal McCarrick made statements which led many Catholics to assume Rome was ambiguous upon denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians.

Speaking of Ratzinger's letter, Cardinal McCarrick said, "the Cardinal recognizes that there are circumstances in which Holy Communion may be denied." Cardinal McCarrick added, "I would emphasize that Cardinal Ratzinger clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors and leaders WHETHER to pursue this path. The Holy See has repeatedly expressed its confidence in our roles as bishops and pastors."

See Cardinal Ratzinger's full letter: http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,42196,00.html

See Cardinal McCarrick's June 15 statements on Cardinal Ratzinger's letter: http://www.usccb.org/bishops/intreflections.htm

See LifeSiteNews.com coverage of Cardinal McCarrick commenting on Cardinal Arinze: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04042805.html

---

TOPICS: Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: Click to Add Keyword

---

Donate Here By Secure Server

---

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]

---

US Bishops Non-Decision in Denver on Pro-Abortion Politicians and Communion Widens Catholic Divide

WILMINGTON, July 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The disciplinary split in the US Catholic Church continues to widen with bishops contradicting each other over the issue of pro-abortion politicians and communion. In April, Washington's Cardinal McCarrick appeared to contradict the instructions of Francis Cardinal Arinze who said that pro-abortion politicians should be refused communion. McCarrick responded that though he is personally opposed to pro-abortion politicians receiving communion, he would not be "comfortable" refusing them.

Since then the US bishops have met in Denver to discuss the problem and the result has been a document that threw the "difficult" question back onto individual bishops to decide one diocese at a time. This non-decision has had the effect of drawing a map of a US Catholic hierarchy divided between those who will obey their Church's clear directives and those who will obey media-generated public opinion.

In the diocese of Santa Rosa, Bishop Daniel Walsh has dismissed the possibility of denying communion to pro-abortion politicians calling the idea "an election year ploy." On the issue of "dissenting" politicians, Bishop Walsh said in a statement, "In this diocese there will be no trying to force people to do what their conscience tells them they cannot do, or vice versa. The sacraments are not used as a bludgeon, a weapon to enforce Church law. Out of respect for the sacraments and the faithful, (dissenting politicians) would normally refrain from the Eucharist until they were in unity with the Church." A priest of the Santa Rosa Diocese said that in the case of a person who persisted in public sin and reception of communion, "they would be notified that they could no longer receive the sacraments, and that priests of the diocese would be so instructed. This would, however, be a highly unusual course of events, one that has not been invoked here in recent memory."

In Delaware, however, a different tune is sung by bishop Michael Saltarelli who pledged that Catholic institutions in his diocese "will not honor" pro-abortion politicians. Calling the promotion of abortion a "grave and serious matter" he goes on to state, "it would be more spiritually beneficial for such a person to refrain from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ."

The Roman Catholic Church uses very precise language in its theology and the term "grave matter" means that the action in question is what is commonly called a mortal sin. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, however is explicit where it states, ".others who persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion." Bishop Saltarelli says that individual priests and ministers of communion are not to take upon themselves the decision to refuse communion. He says it is, ".ultimately my responsibility in light of Catholic moral theology and the Code of Canon Law. At this stage, I much prefer the active engagement and dialogue called for by (USCCB document,) 'Catholics in Public Life'."

To read Bishop Saltarelli's statement: http://www.cdow.org/political.html

1 posted on 07/05/2004 10:53:53 PM EDT by Polycarp IV

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Polycarp IV]

US Bishops Non-Decision in Denver on Pro-Abortion Politicians and Communion Widens Catholic Divide

WILMINGTON, July 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The disciplinary split in the US Catholic Church continues to widen with bishops contradicting each other over the issue of pro-abortion politicians and communion. In April, Washington's Cardinal McCarrick appeared to contradict the instructions of Francis Cardinal Arinze who said that pro-abortion politicians should be refused communion. McCarrick responded that though he is personally opposed to pro-abortion politicians receiving communion, he would not be "comfortable" refusing them.

Since then the US bishops have met in Denver to discuss the problem and the result has been a document that threw the "difficult" question back onto individual bishops to decide one diocese at a time. This non-decision has had the effect of drawing a map of a US Catholic hierarchy divided between those who will obey their Church's clear directives and those who will obey media-generated public opinion.

In the diocese of Santa Rosa, Bishop Daniel Walsh has dismissed the possibility of denying communion to pro-abortion politicians calling the idea "an election year ploy." On the issue of "dissenting" politicians, Bishop Walsh said in a statement, "In this diocese there will be no trying to force people to do what their conscience tells them they cannot do, or vice versa. The sacraments are not used as a bludgeon, a weapon to enforce Church law. Out of respect for the sacraments and the faithful, (dissenting politicians) would normally refrain from the Eucharist until they were in unity with the Church." A priest of the Santa Rosa Diocese said that in the case of a person who persisted in public sin and reception of communion, "they would be notified that they could no longer receive the sacraments, and that priests of the diocese would be so instructed. This would, however, be a highly unusual course of events, one that has not been invoked here in recent memory."

In Delaware, however, a different tune is sung by bishop Michael Saltarelli who pledged that Catholic institutions in his diocese "will not honor" pro-abortion politicians. Calling the promotion of abortion a "grave and serious matter" he goes on to state, "it would be more spiritually beneficial for such a person to refrain from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ."

The Roman Catholic Church uses very precise language in its theology and the term "grave matter" means that the action in question is what is commonly called a mortal sin. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, however is explicit where it states, ".others who persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion." Bishop Saltarelli says that individual priests and ministers of communion are not to take upon themselves the decision to refuse communion. He says it is, ".ultimately my responsibility in light of Catholic moral theology and the Code of Canon Law. At this stage, I much prefer the active engagement and dialogue called for by (USCCB document,) 'Catholics in Public Life'."

To read Bishop Saltarelli's statement: http://www.cdow.org/political.html

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.


JOHN KERRY = Enemy of Vietnam Vets

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1320


.

[Mears]

Ratzinger has had extraordianry power for many years.

He's the power behind the papacy.

[BikerNYC]

How about the Catholic politician who is personally opposed to spousal abuse signing a law that permits husbands to beat their wives?

Are you saying there is broad support for spousal abuse from the citizens of your state and the legislature?

How about the death penalty? Can a catholic politician be personally opposed to it yet take a principled stand to execute the will of the majority of citizens in his state by signing a death penalty law and implimenting it?

[areafiftyone]

Well if this Cardinal is true to his word then Guiliani and Pataki are barred too. That should be the case.

[Polycarp IV]

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.

[Desdemona]

How about the death penalty? Can a catholic politician be personally opposed to it yet take a principled stand to execute the will of the majority of citizens in his state by signing a death penalty law and implimenting it?

The death penalty is NOT on a same moral level. It has never been. This pope is personally opposed to it as states are better able to incarcerate criminals, but the church has never taught that it should be outlawed. It is to be used with prudence, but such moves should be up to the states themselves. The catechism signed by this pope says it, too.

[Alberta's Child]

Are you saying there is broad support for spousal abuse from the citizens of your state and the legislature?

Not yet.

And that's not a joke, either. At one time there was no "broad support" for such things as abortion, stem cell research, human cloning, homosexual marriage, etc.

In light of how quickly those issues have entered the realm of public acceptance, there isn't a single idiotic idea -- no matter how wacky and outlandish it may seem -- that you can point to today and say with any credibility that there will not be any "broad support" for it even three years from now.

At one time slavery was ingrained in the economy and culture of the American South. Does this mean that it was perfectly acceptable for someone who was "personally opposed" to the concept of slavery to support legislation that strictly enforced the rights of slave owners?

[BikerNYC]

This pope is personally opposed to it as states are better able to incarcerate criminals, but the church has never taught that it should be outlawed.

So, in effect, this Pope is personally opposed to an activity yet believes it is perfectly acceptable for a government to engage in it.

[petitfour]

Kerry is welcome to continue serving his masters.

[hardhead]

A few fellow parishioners are irked at me because I refuse to label these wayward souls as 'pro-choice'. I call them pro-death, which is what they are.

[Lilllabettt]

Nah. The conclave is going to give the keys to an older cardinal next time. JP2 was relatively young; and his pontificate has been long, something the conclave does not like at all. I have heard Ratzinger mentioned on papabile lists, but its not likely at all. Being Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith tends to make you plenty of enemies. Besides, he wants to retire. He's asked Il Papa several times. Always turned down, though.

[BikerNYC]

At one time slavery was ingrained in the economy and culture of the American South. Does this mean that it was perfectly acceptable for someone who was "personally opposed" to the concept of slavery to support legislation that strictly enforced the rights of slave owners?

Yes, if that was the will of a majority of his constituents (although one could argue that the slaves' inability to contribute to that discussion distorted what the will of the majority actually was).

[Desdemona]

So, in effect, this Pope is personally opposed to an activity yet believes it is perfectly acceptable for a government to engage in it.

The Church teaches that when truly dangerous criminals cannot be incarcerated, such actions may be moral. It has to be justified. The problem is that the criterea are subjective, so there's really no black and white answer like in abortion.

[onyx]

has anyone seen ted kennedy taking communion





Not since grape juice was substituted for wine.