American Bishop: Pro-Choice Equals No Communion For Catholics

Life Site ^ | 06.19.07 | Peter J. Smith

[Coleus]

PATERSON, New Jersey, June 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-choice Catholics, not just Catholic politicians, must not receive Communion if they knowingly support legalized abortion says an American Catholic bishop.  "By steadfastly choosing to be pro-choice, a Catholic -- politician or not -- excludes himself or herself from communion," wrote Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli in the June 7 edition of the Beacon, the Paterson diocese newspaper.  In his column Serratelli rebuked "pro-choice" Catholic politicians and those who "arrogantly insist that the Church does not have the right to her own teaching" and who claim a right to Communion at the same time. In particular Serratelli went after the 18 Democratic Congressmen who lashed out at Pope Benedict XVI for stating that supporting abortion is "incompatible with receiving communion"

The Church vigorously teaches that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception." However "pro-choice Catholics," as Serratelli pointed out, have reacted in self-righteous "how dare he" indignation when the Pope tells them that the Church has definitive truths, objective criteria for forming a conscience, and does not rubberstamp everyone as worthy to approach Holy Communion.  "[The Pope] is right when he insists that supporting abortion is incompatible with the reception of Holy Communion," said Serratelli.  "Certainly, a politician has the freedom to reject Church's teaching," he stated. "But let's be honest.  To choose to be pro-choice is to reject the Gospel of life.  It is to be not faithful to Church teaching."

Serratelli noted that guidelines for Catholics receiving Communion prepared by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops also teach that Catholics "should refrain" from receiving Communion if they were to "knowingly and obstinately to repudiate [the Church's] definitive teaching on moral issues," either in their personal or professional life. "The Church has always taught that a procured abortion is a moral evil," said Seratelli. "The Church's teaching is clear.  What is disputed now is the Church's right to speak this truth." Serratelli noted that the 18 Catholic Congressmen who "strongly chastised" Benedict XVI were refusing "to allow the Pope freedom of speech and the Church freedom of religion."

Politicians in western governments worldwide have attacked the Catholic Church's right to hold its members accountable to Catholic teachings in the name of "pluralism." Right now two Catholic archbishops in Australia, George Pell of Sydney and Hickey of Perth, face investigations into whether their telling Catholic parliamentarians that support for the destruction of human life in stem-cell research is incompatible with receiving communion amounted to "contempt of parliament." "Why should the Church not have a right to voice her teaching on this important issue in the public square?  She must speak and speak often," Serratelli said. "Abortion may be for some just a political issue.  But, for the innocent child, it is a matter of life or death."

See the Paterson Bishop's column here

Related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

Pope Warns Pro-Abortion Politicians Against Receiving Communion Unworthily
18 House Democrats Blast Pope for Dropping the "E-word" on Abortion
Pope Supports Excommunication for Pro-Abortion Politicians - "Incompatible with Receiving Communion"
Full Text - New US Bishops Conference Document on Worthiness to Receive Communion

[Coleus]

One of the 18 congressmen mentioned in the article is Bill Pascrell, D-8, who is registered in the Diocese of Paterson. His predecessor, Robert A. Roe a catholic democrat congressman voted pro life.

[Coleus]

.

[SevenofNine]

got give props to this Bishop

[littlehouse36]

I’m sorry, I’m a pro-life Catholic but I disagree with this selective meddling into politics. Why don’t they go ahead deny communion to those who support gay marriage, unjust wars, Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception) and so on.

[Coleus]

Robert Roe, D-8, NJ, Bill Pascrell's predecessor.  A democrat congressman for about 30 years who is catholic and voted pro life, so why can't billy pascrell vote the same way?

[RobbyS]

Largely because of the effrontery of the 18 House Democrats on this issue. Aren’t they trying to tell the pope how to do his business?

[RobbyS]

Probably because he would get a challenger in the primary if he did.

[stephenjohnbanker]

BTTT

[Coleus]

because nothing is worse than abortion. The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong. You can’t deny legal protection to the most vulnerable. This Bishop, as well as the others, is making the right choice by following Canon Law 915.

Grave manifest sin, obstinately maintained, which could be the case of the estimated 500 Catholic pro abortion politicians in the U.S.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1072345/posts

[Coleus]

Probably because he would get a challenger in the primary if he did. >>

I don’t know, Bob Roe was a democrat congressman in the same district who voted pro life and, after the influx of so many new Hispanic immigrants, the district is more catholic than it has been in the past. Also, Paterson has a very-large Muslim population that is pro-life and anti-homosexual. Pascrell votes the opposite of his many constituents.

[reaganaut]

Does anyone know if 'sanctity of human life' is an actual dogma of the Church and thus covered by Papal Infallibility (Referencing Pius IX)?

If so, then God has spoken, if not then it should be.

I do not see how a person can separate the Catholic faith, which includes all of its teachings, and politics. If you are Catholic, then you MUST agree with the Church, otherwise, why be Catholic?

Also, the whole point of being "in Communion" is being in agreement.

[RobbyS]

Then Pascrell is a liberal like Pelosi. He has offer stuff to the Mexicans and to the Muslims that will make them look past his occasional pro-choice vote.

[The Old Hoosier]

Just wars can be at least a bit ambiguous, but abortion is not. As JPII wrote, the politicians who enable the abortionists are just as guilty of murder as the abortionists themselves.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I’d be surprised if somewhere in Rome there isn’t a blanket edict to that effect.

[CheyennePress]

>>>I’m sorry, I’m a pro-life Catholic but I disagree with this selective meddling into politics. Why don’t they go ahead deny communion to those who support gay marriage, unjust wars, Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception) and so on.<<<

I tend to agree with you. I don’t like the church subjecting itself to the influence of the state any more than need be. In the Church’s favor and in favor of the Church speaking out on the abortion issue, “Thou Shalt not Murder” is the 5th Commandment... Perhaps a bit more Biblical sway than the others you mentioned.

[chuckles]

I'm not Catholic, but I disagree somewhat. The Bishop is correct to deny communion, but you are correct that it must be dealt out non-selectivly. It should also be denied to those that support gay marriage, and if B. Clinton was Catholic, he should have been made to repent of his adultery and lying. I'm a Baptist, and I couldn't believe his church said nothing during the Monica affair. My church doesn't hesitate to call someone on adultery and fornication. There can be no argument for such things.

I have trouble with the church calling Iraq an unjust war because that certainly is OPINION, not Biblical. Murder of your child cannot be explained away as opinion, it is in fact Biblical.

I do think if the Bishop enforces this rule, there will be a backlash of people that want to pick and choose what they believe God says. I believe the reason abortion and homosexuality are such hot buttons is there can be no room for argument what God requires. Adultery and lying are more things pretty much etched in stone. The stuff about contraception, for me anyway, is mans interpretation. We can agree to disagree, but I don't think people should be denied communion over such things that could be interpreted in other ways. That is Catholic doctrine and they should teach what they want, but murdering your child is not up for discussion. The sanctity of life is a cornerstone of any Christian denomination. One of the reasons many won't accept Mormons as Christian, but as a cult is multiple wives and Jesus is equal to Joseph Smith. The Bible is pretty plain on these subjects and I think they teach error. There are some denominations that teach you can lose your salvation. That is also just a scare tactic, easily refutable in Scripture.

If this Bishop wants to follow through with such a plan, he better be ready for all the other stuff that comes with it. Most denominations are having the same problems the Catholics are about sitting at a buffet table and choosing this and rejecting that. What does it mean do be Catholic and reject Gods Word? Separating Biblical teaching from mans interpretation is the problem.

I still support the Bishop anyway.

[napscoordinator]

I am all about this, but what about the general public Catholics? If we do this for one we must do it for all.

[annalex]

Right now two Catholic archbishops in Australia, George Pell of Sydney and Hickey of Perth, face investigations into whether their telling Catholic parliamentarians that support for the destruction of human life in stem-cell research is incompatible with receiving communion amounted to "contempt of parliament."

It is only a matter of time when the freedom of religion clause in the American Constitution be de-facto overturned under some such pretext.

[annalex]

It should also be denied to those that support gay marriage

Of course. Public advocacy of any sinful behavior is grounds for excommunication.

[Mila]

“I’m sorry, I’m a pro-life Catholic but I disagree with this selective meddling into politics.”

As a fellow Catholic, I wholeheartedly agree.