Catholics cannot support abortion rights-Vatican

Yahoo News ^ | July 7, 2005 | Phillip Pulella

[NYer]

The Vatican on Thursday said too many Roman Catholics were not taking their religion seriously and that those faithful who receive communion and still support abortion rights were behaving scandalously.

In an 88-page working document for a synod of bishops to be held in October, the Vatican also decried dwindling attendance at Sunday Mass and reaffirmed a rule that Catholics who divorce and remarry outside the Church cannot take communion.

The document on the theme of the Eucharist said many Catholics had lost the sense of the sacred surrounding communion, which the Church teaches becomes the body and blood of Christ during the Mass.

One part of the document returned to an issue that remains particularly hot in the United States -- whether Catholics who support abortion rights can receive communion.

"Some receive communion while denying the teachings of the Church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal," it said.

"Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace," it said.

The U.S. Catholic community was divided last year over whether they should support presidential candidate John Kerry, himself an Catholic who supported abortion rights.

Some Catholics say they personally would not have an abortion but, in pluralistic societies such as the United States, feel obliged to support a woman's right to choose.

But the Church, which teaches that life begins at the moment of conception and that abortion is murder, says Catholics cannot have it both ways.

The document lamented what it called "a crisis in the meaning of belonging to the Church" and an inadequate understanding of the Catholic teaching that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is real and not symbolic.

It said an increasingly secularized society had weakened the sense of mystery in the sacrament of communion. Too few Catholics were approaching communion with the "fear and trembling" that the true presence of God warranted.

It also listed a series of other "deficiencies and shadows" related to communion, lamenting that too many Catholics were taking the sacrament while they were in a state of sin because they had not gone to confession first.

"The faithful frequently receive Holy Communion without even thinking that they might be in state of mortal sin," it said.

The taking of communion by divorced Catholics who remarry outside the Church had become "a common occurrence in various countries" even though it is officially forbidden.

The Catholic Church forbids divorce.

The document lamented that in some developed countries participation at Sunday Mass was as low at 5 percent and again urged the faithful to keep Sunday holy.

[mr_hammer]

ME too!

[OpusatFR]

"How about mind control! That should be a crime in the Church too. But it isn't>'

The entire corpus of Western Juris Prudence, the concept of individuality and human rights, the concept of equality and freedom, liberty, salvation, and lots of esoteric thought are directly from 2000 years of Roman, yes, Roman Catholicism.

[marshmallow]

This is from a working document for a synod of bishops.

The real question is how many of these bishops will take this mesage back to their dioceses and instruct their priests to speak clearly about this or alternatively, will write a letter to be read at all Masses? How many of the hoi polloi in the pews will actually get to hear about this?

Not very many.

As is usual, in many cases the message will be lost by neglect. The Vatican speaks and the bishops simply pretend not to hear or file it in the "non-urgent" tray. Well many of them do, anyway.

[kharaku]

What ARE you talking about.

From OCA.org: Now begins the part of the Divine Liturgy called the eucharistic canon. It is also called the anaphora, which means the lifting-up or the elevation. At this time the gifts of bread and wine which have been offered on the altar are lifted up from the altar to God the Father, and receive divine sanctification by the Holy Spirit who comes to change them into the very Body and Blood of Christ.

Also from OCA.orgQUESTION:

I was raised in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. For the past 4 years I have attended a Roman Catholic Church. I found the people in the Orthodox Church to worship Ukraine more then God. I believe within the Catholic Church there is more unity, love, and worship. I believe that Romanians, Carpatho-Russians, Russians, etc. have the same problems.

The Bible states that Christ said to Peter, "on this rock I shall build my church". Why do we refuse to accept the Pope and work together to glorify God. Why must we see others faults first and seek unity second.

ANSWER:

A thorough examination of the "On This Rock" passage of Scripture is far beyond the scope of an e-mail, as it involves a variety of interpretations, theological perspectives, and historic realities which would comprise a veritable volume to discuss and debate. I can state, however, that the Orthodox view and attitude of the Roman Papacy is not a matter of refusing to accept the authority of the Pope but, rather, a matter of historic reality. The bottom line is that, during its 2000 year existence, the Orthodox Church had not been subject to the administrative authority of the Pope of Rome, and this is borne out in the extant decrees of the early Church councils. These councils, while acknowledging the Pope as the "first among equals," in no way envision the Bishop of Rome's "primacy of honor" as a "supremacy of jurisdiction." The papal claims to supremacy are of much later origin, and there are many who would argue that such claims have done far more damage to the unity of Christendom than anything else. [If one looks at the hundreds upon hundreds of Protestant groups that grew out of Roman Catholicism -- there is little parallel here within Orthodox Christianity -- one might also question the papacy as a point of unity.

While Orthodox Christians do indeed pray and hope for "the unity of all," and while it is unfortunately that there are some Orthodox Christians who are less than charitable in addressing non-Orthodox confessions, the fact remains that the unity one seeks must be a genuine unity rooted in Jesus Christ as the Great Archpastor and High Priest, as Saint Paul writes, and not in an administrative "Vicar."

I might suggest that you reconsider your experience of the Orthodox Church by visiting other parishes, speaking with other Orthodox Christians, and opening yourself to the possibility that the experience you had, obviously in a specific parish, is not necessarily the experience of the Orthodox Church as a whole. I my own parish I have faithful of every possible ethnic background. Many of them hold their ethnic roots in high esteem, but none of them, including the immigrants, put their ethnic roots before their Orthodoxy. By the same token I have personally visited Catholic communities, both of the Latin and Byzantine Rite, in which the ethnic flavor is as heavy as it sometimes is in some Orthodox congregations.

God bless you, and I hope this helps -- or at least gives you a somewhat different framework in which to evaluate your experiences.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I don't understand some things - It seems that it doesn't matter if everybody who discussed the Eucharist from the year 110 talked about it being the real body and blood until after the reformation. What gave the Reformers the light when Ignatius of Antioch who was an associate of Polycarp and very likely had been instructed by John the Apostle and others who knew John believed that "the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again." (Written in 110 in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans)

Why would Ignatius, who was going towards death, knowing he would be killed for his beliefs, write something he made up?

Why is whatever modern interpretation of the scripture right, and Ignatius wrong?

Why is someone who decided that it was different in 1600 a better source than someone like Justin Martyr who said:
"the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" about 151, and who died for his faith. He certainly was taught by people who were taught by the early church leaders.

I just don't understand.

Why is an interpretation that is from the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s better than the interpretation of people who were trained by the apostles, or those who were trained just a few years later?

[siunevada]

my sister that was told by an office in the Cleveland Diocese ... "We don't believe that anymore."

They probably don't. Unfortunately, 'they' are not an authoritative source.

[mdmathis6]

No where does it say that Jesus...changed the bread into a hunk of his own flesh nor changed the wine into a goblet of his own blood before offering it to his disciples. He was laying down a corner stone doctrine explaining that the crucifiction was a sacrifice we would all share in! By the sharing of the bread and drinking of the cup("as often as ye do so...") in remembrance("of me") of him we were SPIRITUALLY sharing in his death so that we might share in his Resurrection as well.

And what is more Spiritually real....simply taking a substance into our mouths , or taking the bread and wine with a humble attitude contemplative of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

I submit to you that even if one could actually consume the actual body and blood, torn dripping raw, literally from Christ's flesh, it would mean nothing to the consumer without the personal spiritual cognizance of the meaning of such a consumption!

[absolootezer0]

ooh.. should send this to my ex-wife (adultress) who thinks that everything is just fine and dandy, and is having a child out of wedleck, with a man who is still married, after her church won't give her an annulment, is engaged, bbi-sexual, has had an abortion and is pro-choice... have i found enough for her ex-communication yet?

[absolootezer0]

It is unfortunate that the homosexuals have invaded the church, but condemning the entire church for the actions of a few perverts doesn't stand the test. If this were the case, all organizations, would be condemned for the actions of the perverted 1-2%.

isn't that what liberals and MSM do all day? condemn the majority, the law abiding, the christian, because of the outrages of the minority?

[Sabatier]

"many Catholics had lost the sense of the sacred surrounding communion"

In many Catholic communities the beautiful
traditional music and art was replaced with
less than inspiring bad guitar music and art
in the style of Sister Corita's splish-splash.
Using pictures of Coca Cola and Wonderbread
to symbolize Holy Communion was supposed to
make the Sacrament "relevant" to young people.
All this did was cheapen the sacred.

Mass was too often presented as something
along the lines of the WalMart employees'
morning cheer rather than as a sacred mystery.
The Church has a treasure in its cathedrals,
paintings, and liturgical music, all inspired
by the meaning behind the Sacraments. These
resources have gone too often wasted in the
last forty years.

The Mass in many communities has been presented
in ways that distract from its deeper meaning.
I've seen non-Catholics go up and receive Holy
Communion alongside their Catholic friends or
relatives. These well-meaning people think that
not doing so would be unfriendly. The Church has
used the Mass to emphasize everybody "getting along"
and not surprisingly people have responded to that.

[GraceCoolidge]

All I can say is... well said!

[highball]

In principle, I agree that the Church should follow its own teachings. But I'm intrigued by this sentence:

"The document lamented that in some developed countries participation at Sunday Mass was as low at 5 percent and again urged the faithful to keep Sunday holy."

If they're losing the attention of the faithful, is beating this particular drum the answer? What other areas will they start cracking down on? What will the Vatican do with Catholics who practice birth control? They're worried about low attendance *now*. Start excluding 80% of American Catholics and see how many come out on Sunday.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not Catholic-bashing, I am genuinely curious. I know many Catholics, but very few (even conservatives) who profess to following Church teachings on birth control. The vast majority admit that they think Rome is simply unrealistic on this. Where do they stand?

[frogjerk]

John 6 refutes your argument entirely. Do you just ignore John 6?

Christ commanded us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. You're explanation is stating that Christ is asking us to do something impossible. Christ never asked mankind to do something impossible.

And what is more Spiritually real....simply taking a substance into our mouths , or taking the bread and wine with a humble attitude contemplative of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

You are in error. Catholics do not simply take a substance into their mouths. Catholics believe they are receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as he commanded. What's even more spiritually, as you say, is this belief AND the eating and drinking of Jesus' body and blood.

Catholics are cognizant, reverent and humble when coming to Holy Communion. If this was not the case, there wouldn't be strict guidelines set forth over the centuries by the Church in receiving Holy Communion.

[Sabatier]

Thank you.

[Republican Wildcat]

A number were charged here in Kentucky alone in the last couple of years...I don't know how many were nationwide. Nevertheless, it is a small minority of them.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "And what is more Spiritually real...

But God isn't content with just "spiritually real." If He were, He would not have created the Universe. He would not have made us embodied creatures, and He would not have become incarnate, Himself: real flesh, real blood, real man.

We are incarnate. Our faith is not a relationship between a Mind and a Concept. It is a relationship of a Whole Person with a Whole Person.

The Holy Communion of the Eucharist is analogous to the Holy "Communion" of Marriage. It's fine if your spouse says, "I love ya, honey, I love ya" but it means even more, even deeper, if you give yourself as an total embodied gift, and receive your spouse as a total embodied gift.

Just as sexual intercourse is a constitutive element of the sacrament of Matrimony -- without an act of intercourse, the marriage is not consummated and the bond is held to be null --- receiving Communion with the Lord means receiving His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, which is what we are privileged to embrace in our very bodies, when we consume the consecrated food of the Sacrament.

Catholics! If we truly grasped this, we would approach Communion on our faces, crawling up to the chalice and shaking all over. But we don't grasp it, not really. We are dolts. We are so much more like Judas than like John: we kiss Him, and then... Kyrie eleison.

[armydoc]

Why is an interpretation that is from the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s better than the interpretation of people who were trained by the apostles, or those who were trained just a few years later?

Ah, yes, the "Church Fathers" argument- they believed it; it must be so. Error could not arise so early, could it? In Galatians 2:11, we see Paul rebuking Peter for his error, only 15 years after Christ's death! I guess Paul was in the wrong. After all, Peter had more contact with Jesus and was the first Pope. He is the "Church Father of Church Fathers". We should emulate him, and force everyone to follow Jewish customs.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "And what is more Spiritually real...

But God isn't content with just "spiritually real." If He were, He would not have created the Universe. He would not have made us embodied creatures, and He would not have become incarnate, Himself: real flesh, real blood, real man.

We are incarnate. Our faith is not a relationship between a Mind and a Concept. It is a relationship of a Whole Person with a Whole Person.

The Holy Communion of the Eucharist is analogous to the Holy "Communion" of Marriage. It's fine if your spouse says, "I love ya, honey, I love ya" but it means even more, even deeper, if you give yourself as an total embodied gift, and receive your spouse as a total embodied gift.

Just as sexual intercourse is a constitutive element of the sacrament of Matrimony -- without an act of intercourse, the marriage is not consummated and the bond is held to be null --- receiving Communion with the Lord means receiving His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, which is what we are privileged to embrace in our very bodies, when we consume the consecrated food of the Sacrament.

Catholics! If we truly grasped this, we would approach Communion on our faces, crawling up to the chalice and shaking all over. But we don't grasp it, not really. We are dolts. We are so much more like Judas than like John: we kiss Him, and then... Kyrie eleison.

[mike182d]

Intercourse or molestation?

[golas1964]

Bravo!!!