Head of Vatican's Highest Court: "Obligation to Deny Communion to Pro-Abortion" Politicians

LifeSiteNews ^ | 8/18/08 | John-Henry Westen

[Aquinasfan]

Last month, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Archbishop Raymond Burke, formerly the Archbishop of St. Louis, as the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, which is the highest judicial authority of the Catholic Church besides the Pope himself.

Wooohoo! I love Pope Benedict!

I hope the American bishops are paying attention. Bishop Burke has been a (almost) lone American voice with respect to denying communion to pro-abortion politicians.

[thefrankbaum]

I think, once Archbishop Burke begins to knock around some of the American Bishops, the rest will smarten up. For those priests who continue to provide the Eucharist to pro-Abortion politicians, a couple nagging phone calls to the local Bishop from laity would cause some action to begin immediately. I don't think any Bishop is going to want their feet held to the fire after one of their number has already been held responsible in some way.

[TexasRedeye]

When it comes to the internal control of the Church, the Pope has all the divisions. As far as your comment about money is concerned, it is beneath contempt.

I believe that is one of the dumbest statements I've ever read on this forum! If the Pope could "enforce" this edict, he would. He is powerless in this regard and it is shown and has been shown by the fact that the pseudo-Catholic politicians go against His proclamations every time they vote on any issue that would (in their donors eyes) weaken Roe v. Wade. Otherwise why is it that they have not been excommunicated, hmmmmmm?

[Aquinasfan]

If you know of a priest who does this, should a layman contact his superiors, or contact the Vatican directly? If it is a bishop who commits the offense, who do you report it to?

Like Jesus instructed us, we are to work our way up the chain of command. If the priest errs, first go to the priest, then to the bishop, then to the papal nuncio, and finally, to the Vatican.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Democrats will no doubt respond by saying the church is messing in politics, and taking a look at the tax free status.

[Aquinasfan]

It will not be enforced. There is too much money involved.

Do you really think that pro-abortion politicians are big donors to the Church? (If that's what you're implying). Secondly, unfounded accusations of this kind are uncharitable, to put it politely.

[TexasRedeye]

Do you really think that pro-abortion politicians are big donors to the Church?

Yes and yes! How much money has the Kennedys and Kerrys given to the "church" in Massachusetts? How much money has the Kennedys, Kerrys, Boxers, Pelosis, Durbins, etc, etc, gotten from the abortion supporters? They would lose both their donor base and their seats in power without that money. They then "buy" their way into the "church" for publicity reasons.

NO! The Pope cannot, and his minions will not, enforce His pro-life edicts on American politicians! EVER!

Too much money involved as I said.

I guess I am just tired of the whining about this situation. After all these years, it is time for the "church" to enforce their beliefs on their politicians (which the Pope and the church leaders claim to have the right to do) and the people who support them with donations and their votes or simply shut up about it and "move on"!

[LonePalm]

Sweetie Ping!

I thought you might find this interesting.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[delacoert]

"A person who commits sin in this way should be publicly admonished in such a way as to not receive Communion until he or she has reformed his life," the archbishop said. "If a person who has been admonished persists in public mortal sin and attempts to receive Communion, the minister of the Eucharist has the obligation to deny it to him. Why? Above all, for the salvation of that person, preventing him from committing a sacrilege," he added.

Why isn't there a similar statement about the eternal peril that a priest faces for knowingly administering the blessed sacrament to a politician who persists in this public mortal sin? Isn't the priest at least as culpable if he knowingly administers the sacrament in this situation?