Vatican Cardinal Compares Abortion to Killing Politicians - "Pro-Choice" and Communion

LifeSite ^ | November 14, 2005 | John-Henry Westen

[NYer]

VATICAN CITY, November 14, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Cardinal Francis Arinze, as the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, is the highest authority in the Catholic Church - next to the Pope himself - on the question of communion for pro-abortion politicians.  As such, he has oft been asked for his position on the matter in light of the raging public debate on the issue which has bishops pitted on opposite sides of the question as well as many unwilling to take any position.

In an interview published Saturday by Inside the Vatican, the Cardinal, somewhat exasperatedly, responded once again to the question.  In the interview he compared the situation to a person in favour of killing politicians and asked rhetorically if such a person should be denied communion.  He said: Suppose somebody voted for the killing of all the members of the House of Representatives, 'for all of you being killed. I call that pro-choice. Moreover, I am going to receive Holy Communion next Sunday.' Then you ask me, should he be given communion. My reply, 'Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that question?' Can a child having made his First Communion not answer that question? Is it really so complicated? The child will give the correct answer immediately, unless he is conditioned by political correctness. It is a pity, cardinals have to be asked such questions."

In addition to Canon Law and numerous church documents which have forbidden reception of communion for persons in grave sin such as pro-abortion politicians, Cardinal Arinze has publicly stated the position of the church on the matter several times.  The first time, in English, was a candid televised interview with EWTN. (see LifeSiteNews.com coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05021603.html )  He has since reiterated his statements on the matter several times (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072504.html )

Despite this, the debate over the issue continues among US and Canadian bishops who, with only a handful of exceptions, far from endorsing the position expressed by Cardinal Arinze, have evaded the issue or remained silent.

A central character in the US bishops' debate on the issue, Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, went so far as to withhold from a meeting of the US bishops' conference, the pertinent section of a letter by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (CDF) in which he said such legislators "must be refused" communion. (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04070501.html )

Cardinal Arinze's complete response to Inside the Vatican follows:

ARINZE: You are asking me if a politician says, "I vote for abortion, and I will continue to ask for abortion." Then you ask should he be given holy communion. So, you are really saying, this politician says, "I vote for the killing of unborn children." Because we call things by their names. And he calls that pro-choice.

Suppose somebody voted for the killing of all the members of the House of Representatives, "for all of you being killed. I call that pro-choice. Moreover, I am going to receive Holy Communion next Sunday." Then you ask me, should he be given communion. My reply, "Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that question?" Can a child having made his First Communion not answer that question? Is it really so complicated? The child will give the correct answer immediately, unless he is conditioned by political correctness. It is a pity, cardinals have to be asked such questions.

If a person has a way of life which is against the major Commandments, and makes a boast of it, then the person is in a state which is publicly sinful. It is he who has disqualified himself, not the priest or the bishop. He should not go to communion, until his life should be in line with the Gospel.

See the full interview with Inside the Vatican:
http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash-nov-12-0...

[NYer]

If a person has a way of life which is against the major Commandments, and makes a boast of it, then the person is in a state which is publicly sinful. It is he who has disqualified himself, not the priest or the bishop. He should not go to communion, until his life should be in line with the Gospel.

Someone want to send this memo to John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, to name only two.

[madprof98]

I had fervently hoped this man would be our new pope. I am still waiting for Pope Benedict to do all the supposedly hateful things he was expected to do--like enforce some standards.

[Sam Gamgee]

What he said may be shocking, but he is an advocate of God. I'd say no communion for those advocating abortion or homosexuality. Hopefully Protestant churches will also take this stand.

[BobCNY]

Of course we must ask the Cardinal this since our teachers and shepards in their bishops conference will not give the answer a child that makes their first Communion would know.

I guess the question that should be asked of our Cardinal is what do we do with bishops that don't provide the answer to the question.

[livius]

Suppose somebody voted for the killing of all the members of the House of Representatives, 'for all of you being killed. I call that pro-choice. Moreover, I am going to receive Holy Communion next Sunday.'

Great analogy! I hope phrasing it this way makes some politician somewhere actually stop and think about the implications of his position.

[ArrogantBustard]

I will not make snide remarks about politicians.
I will not make snide remarks about politicians.
I will not make snide remarks about politicians.
I will not make snide remarks about politicians.
I will not make snide remarks about politicians.
I will not make snide remarks about politicians.
I will not make snide remarks about politicians.
I will not make snide remarks about politicians.

[annalex]

I continue to be irritated by Cardinal Arinze's equivocations. It is the same as his previous broken syllogism with Raymond Arroyo. Once, we can think he was just being sloppy. The second time, it is clear he avoids the issue.

First there is this "any child knows" routine. That is in response to "should [a pro-abortion pol] be given Communion".

Then he states "He should not go to communion". Gee, thanks. That we knew already. The question is, if he presents himself, should he be given communion? To that, we are referred to what the "child" knows, and nothing Card. Arinze can be quoted on.

Parse this man's words before you applaud him.

[Nihil Obstat]

Ah, come on... Do it.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

'Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that question?' Can a child having made his First Communion not answer that question? Is it really so complicated? The child will give the correct answer immediately, unless he is conditioned by political correctness. It is a pity, cardinals have to be asked such questions."

Brilliant.

Too bad that so many spineless American neo-modernist bishops do not have the courage to say this.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What I want to know is, what are our responsibilities as Catholic laypeople on this issue? What if you're an "extraordianry minister of the Eucharist" or whatever the title is now?

Don't all Eucharistic Ministers have the responsibility to prevent profanation of the Sacrament?

Don't ushers, even, have the responsibility to prevent sacrilege in the Church? (I want to ask: why do the Knights of Columbus carry those swords?)

I'm not seriously suggesting shishkebabbing Kerry and Cuomo and the rest. But seriously: Canon Law says clearly that these open, manifest, grave, persistent, unrepentant, public offenders ARE NOT TO BE ADMITTED to Holy Communion.

Does anything exempt Eucharistic Ministers from carrying out this Canon?

[NYer]

Does anything exempt Eucharistic Ministers from carrying out this Canon?

An excellent question that has surfaced in the forum on several occasions. One of the issues, obviously entwined with this question, would be: "Is this (well known political) communicant in a state of grace?" And the only one to answer it would be the priest to whom the individual applied earlier that day or the day before, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (assuming that even happened).

From what I have seen over the years, normally the 'celebrity' communicant is seated up front in the Church and receives from the priest. I do recall, however, that during his run for the presidency, when all eyes (and cameras) were focused on him, John Kerry avoided the priest and went to a Eucharistic Minister. I also recall at the installation Mass for Bishop Sean O'Malley, Ted Kennedy was seated up front and left the Church before Communion.

Since the Eucharistic Minister would have no way of knowing if the 'celebrity' had gone to Confession, the onus is on the EEM to withhold communion, based on their own conscience.

At Pentecost this year, a group of Eucharistic Ministers actually stepped forward and distributed Communion to the rainbow sashers. They even planted individuals in the front rows, equipped with cameras, to catch their "statement" on celuloid.

[NYer]

Parse this man's words before you applaud him.

Cardinal Arinze is a simple man in his speech, despite holding a very high position at the Vatican. During the Conclave, I watched Raymond Arroyo and Fr. Neuhaus each night on EWTN, along with their guests. Some of these visitors were African Cardinals. One showed up in street clothes and, when asked, addressed the fact that he is a down to earth individual, focused and concetrated on issues in his country. Like Arinze, he spoke in simple terms.

Many were hopeful that Francis Cardinal Arinze would be elevated to the papacy. The Holy Spirit inspired the electorate to select Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. For westerners, such as ourselves, Benedict XVI represents the Church as we know it. But for many in Africa and other parts of the world, our 'western' views are quite alien from theirs. They approach things in a different manner. They are 'younger' in the faith than we and we are 'younger' in the faith than our Eastern Catholic brethren.

Give Arinze credit where it is due. He made an astute (albeit obvious) observation, that First Communicants know who should and should not receive Communion. Do you disagree with that observation?

[NYer]

I am still waiting for Pope Benedict to do all the supposedly hateful things he was expected to do--like enforce some standards.

Here's a big hint. Since being elected pope, up until this week, he made NO appointments of bishops in the US. This is the longest gap, according to what I have read, ever made by a pontiff in replacing retiring bishops. That said, the ones chosen this past week were obvious selections. Benedict XVI is biding his time and keeping silent. This is driving the media crazy. From this, I draw great comfort and confidence.

[annalex]

His equivocation is not simple. His mannerisms may suggest simplicity, but repeating the same evasive maneuver twice shows that the maneuver has been researched. He is avoiding saying anything quotable, while signaling to the orthodox-minded that he is one of them. This is cowardly.

To answer your question, -- I don't know if First Communicants in America really know the answer to that moral question. I would like to know what Cardinal Arinze thinks, not what children might think. Maybe Cardinal Arinze in his charity thinks that American children know the right answer. This is irrelevant. Arinze is bringing up children not to make a point but to avoid making the statement that is clear and can be quoted.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Please read the 1997 statement on cooperation of lay people in certain priestly ministries. There is no "office" of EEM. The person is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion on an ad hoc basis. This is being widely abused throughout the church. Routine use of extraordinary ad hoc distributors of Communion and training sessions for them etc. have created in the minds of people a quasi-clerical state that has no reality in fact, as the document clearly states. To think of the "EEM" as a lasting "office" or lasting "ministry" role blurs the line between clergy and laity and thereby undermines the Catholic understanding of the ministerial priesthood for which thousands of Catholics gave their lives during the Reformation. It plays right into the hands of the liberals who wish to destroy the priesthood of the Catholic Church.

For traditional Catholics, in the name of defending the Sacrament, to usurp a governing role (and denying communion is a governing role) that belongs solely to the bishop (delegated to the pastor of a parish and to other priests in hearing confessions) is monstrous.

No matter what you wish priests and bishops would do on this matter, lay people would be utterly wrong to take this into their own hands. It's the same kind of violation of the "constitution" of the Church that a judge legislating from the bench is guilty of.

I'm appalled that a conservative or traditional Catholic could even ask this question. I understand the deep desire to see CINO politicians disciplined and to see an end to the scandal their sins are causing. But the bishops have to do this. We cannot, as lay people, take this into our hands. We have plenty of "ministy" to do in teaching our children and each other the Catholic faith and living it out in our state in life. That is the true priesthood or ministry of the lay person. Just because we have good intentions (stopping the scandal of pro-abortion politicians acting as they were Catholics in good standing) does not make it right for us to blur the lines between clergy and laity and usurp a clerical role.

[narses]

+

If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!

[aimee5291]

'I guess the question that should be asked of our Cardinal is what do we do with bishops that don't provide the answer to the question.'

I agree with you...matter of fact, some in our area are liberal...