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.

[q_an_a]

it would be nice if a few churchmen withheld communion form the unrepentent who move gay priests around to abuse choir boys.

[Snuffington]

Do I now have to worry that any Catholic politican might not take his cues from the people who elected him, but rather will do what his Church tells him to do so he is not denied a ritual that may be very important to him?

As for taking cues from those who elected him, you might want to consult Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol. A salient quotation from it:

"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament." And further: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." (Speech to the Electors of Bristol, November 3, 1774.)

As for your fears about his Church telling him what to do, this is a point I'm puzzled about. Why would you find it preferable to vote for a man who publicly betrays a faith he has sworn to deeply believe, rather than one who won't betray it? It seems the former is self-evidently dishonest.

This is not some arbitrary papal pronouncement. It's a fundamental teaching of the Church. The letter above makes clear that the statements of the pope himself regarding issues such as capital punishment and war do not and cannot bind Catholics this way.

[Lilllabettt]

No, he does not believe it is acceptable. But he can't say "As the Vicar of Christ, I say that capital punishment is always evil." Because that would be an alteration of doctrine, which is impossible in the Catholic Church. He can say that at this time in history, in his opinion, the death penalty is not necessary and should rarely if ever be used. And the Pope does not let governments off the hook either. He advises them of his personal beliefs all the time.

[BikerNYC]

Why would you find it preferable to vote for a man who publicly betrays a faith he has sworn to deeply believe, rather than one who won't betray it?

Because he is willing to forego his own opinions and execute the will of the majority. Mr. Burke's opinion is certainly a valid one, but how many times have we heard how vile politicians are for failing to execute the will of the majority and, instead, doing what they personally believe is the right thing to do.

[Zack Nguyen]

“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.

I'm not a Catholic, but I am a Christian. Fromt he Catholic perspective (if I may be so bold) the death penalty ends a few hundred lives a year, if that. Abortion ends over a million in this country alone.

[Zack Nguyen]

Should a catholic politician listen to his constituents or his church when it comes to matters of public policy?

He should listen to whomever is right, and do it. It's really that simple.

[BikerNYC]

I understand. All I am saying is that, in that case, the Pope himself is personally opposed to something, yet believes it is morally acceptable for governments to consider the issue and impliment a policy which is contrary to his own personal views. I don't find anything objectionable to that.

[repentant_pundit]

Bump !

[Lilllabettt]

Aha! See! Now we see where that argument ultimately leads: madness. After all, there is no objective wrong and right, only the will of the people. They tried that in France, you know. It didn't work out.

[technochick99]

I believe that politicians vote their consciences more than they unfailingly express the will of their constitutents. In some instances, yes, they represent their voters, but the idea of a republic says that this person will vote for us. All politicians (people) are guided by moral codes of some sort, religious or not.

[mcg1969]

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.

Yes, but again, why is this a bad thing? If someone wants to be a practicing Catholic, and they want to make a political issue out of it as Kerry has, then they had better be braced for questions or accusations about whether or not they are following their Church's teachings. It should make constituents wonder what their voting record would be.

If the Catholic church had been doing its own self-declared job all this time, then we could be sure that anyone who is a communion-taking Catholic will be pro-life and anti-euthanasia. Wouldn't it be nice to have such sure knowledge about your politicians? Obviously they could jump ship and change their mind, but in doing so they would lose the support of their Church---preventing hasty political maneuvering.

[Alberta's Child]

That's interesting.

I say that because this jibes with the position that most liberals today take with regard to John Kerry. In other words, they commend him for taking the exact same approach to this issue that they accuse Pope Pius XII of taking towards Nazi Germany during the Holocaust.

[BlessedBeGod]

Uh,......what does the Pope have to 'say' about this 'private' memorandum?

If Cardinal Ratzinger released this memorandum, you can be assured that 1) the Holy Father knows about it, and 2) the Holy Father approves of it. They're very close.

[BikerNYC]

He should listen to whomever is right, and do it. It's really that simple.

Ah yes, very simple. Why don't you write a book listing who is right on every moral issue around, and I am sure it will be well received.

Did you ever read Plato's Euthyphro? The Euthyphro is a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, set outside the court-house in Athens. Socrates is attending the court having been indicted for corrupting the young with impiety. Euthyphro is attending the court in order to indict his father for the murder of a household slave.

When Socrates hears of the reason for Euthyphro’s presence outside the court he takes heart. Surely one willing to bring charges against his own father must have certain knowledge of piety and impiety, Socrates reasons. No one, he thinks, would set out on such a course unless they were absolutely sure that it was the right thing to do. Socrates forms a plan: he requests that Euthyphro teach him as to the nature of piety, in order that he might inform the court that he has learned the error of his ways and presents no further risk to the young.

Needless to say, Euthyphro falls short.

[oldironsides]

Kennedy and communion? Many years ago there was a photo circulating of Kennedy atop a female on the deack of a boat
floating off a coast. I think it may have been out of the USA. It wasn't pretty. I am surprised we have not had that photo on FR?

[Lilllabettt]

Exactly. His Emminence makes noise when John Paul II lets him. Ratzinger works for the Pope, not the other way around, contrary to popular belief.

[BikerNYC]

Now we see where that argument ultimately leads: madness. After all, there is no objective wrong and right, only the will of the people.

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable in Iran, where the Mullahs have it all figured out and the will of the People need not be taken into consideration.

[BlessedBeGod]

Should a catholic politician listen to his constituents or his church when it comes to matters of public policy?

If he can't reconcile the two, he should either quit being a politician or quit being a Catholic.

[BlessedBeGod]

The Church should rightly be more concerned with sin than politics.

We are talking aobut sin.

[eastsider]

The intentional killing of an innocent human being is a sin against justice, not piety.