Pro "Choice" Pol wants to receive communion from the pope

[Maxentius]

"Catholic members of Congress who publicly support the right to abortion will trek to Nationals Park Thursday for a Mass celebrated by a pope who has said such lawmakers should not receive Communion.

Leading these lawmakers, some of whom have repeatedly complained about remarks by Pope Benedict XVI and a few bishops on the subject, will be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the government's highest-ranking Catholic and a supporter of abortion rights. Nowhere in her remarks or her actions this week has she referred to strains with the new pontiff....

... And yes, her spokesman said, she intends to receive Communion from one of the 300 priests and lay ministers who will offer it to the gathered flock of 45,000." (source)

Lets hope the pope, the priests and the communion assistants show their convictions. I mean, if the pope says a politician should not receive--they should not receive. If she does, and it is photographed, it could be a public relations nightmare for those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life.

Oh yeah, I loved this quote too:

" If Catholic legislators are scorned and held out for ridicule by Church leaders on the basis of a single issue, the Church will lose strong advocates on a wide range of issues that relate to the core of important Catholic social teaching," they wrote. "Moreover, criticism of us on a matter that is essentially one of personal morality will deter other Catholics from entering politics, and in the long run the Church will suffer."

Boo friggin' hoo.

No better example of smorgasboard religion than this--and I love the implicit threat--let us commune or else! As for me, if she does commune, it would be fun to watch if the pope himself put her under some sort of lesser ban on receiving until she repents--because that is what a bishop should to to a reclaritant member who openly flouts the teachings of the Church. (That is how it should work in the LC-MS too, BTW)

FWIW, I queried my pastor as to what he would do in a similar situation a year ago, and he would not commune these pols. Not a dig at the pope, BTW, just saying that if we talk the talk, we better walk the walk.

[Crow]

Y'know, it takes either some guts or gall to try to force the Pope to be accepting of those who support murder. Especially this Pope. I don't have a real good grasp of all that he's about, being outside of the RC Church. But I get the impression that he's not afraid to come off as intolerant and totally not P.C.

I hope they refuse her.

[Rusty T]

It'll definitely be a relief if they are refused communion. With over 300 priests and bishops distributing, I don't see this happening.

rusty

[nomad]

so what, do they get a card ahead of time with all the pictures on it?

Really, all this grandstanding over the communion is foolish on the politician's part. I am not Catholic, but I've been in Catholic churches a few times, and at least twice they were just going to wave me into the line (I let them know I couldn't commune). Both were very large Catholic churches. I know what Pelosi looks like, but there are probably others I wouldn't even recognize. Unless they made a big deal out of it, what's the chances someone might offer one communion by 'accident', just because they were in line?

I know that Catholic churches don't have open communion, but how is it enforced? Do they even ask you, or is it usually if they are getting in line, they are assumed to be confirmed etc?

[Lazarus]

I seriously doubt these politicians will be refused communion in public, though I do think their disregard of Catholic faith and their disrespect for the Pope will come back to haunt them both spiritually and politically in the future. For the Church to refuse them communion at this juncture would give these politicians more attention than they warrant and would distract from the real purpose of the Pope's journey to America. I would not be surprised, however, if the American Bishops decided to take the bull by the horns and take more drastic steps once the Pope has returned to Rome, and in doing so I think they would have the sympathy and support of a majority of American Catholics. I hope these politicians will avoid this confrontation. It can only lead to bitterness and division.

[Little Shepherd]

I think the entourage of bodyguards might give something away.

[Macgawd]

I know that Catholic churches don't have open communion, but how is it enforced? Do they even ask you, or is it usually if they are getting in line, they are assumed to be confirmed etc?

Generally speaking, it's a matter of trust and personal responsibility. Catholics are on their own recognizance to ensure that they are in full communion with the Church, and that they confess their mortal sins before receiving the Eucharist. (That being said, I would venture to say that nowadays, most folks do not examine their conscience before receiving the Eucharist as they should, given that there is almost never anyone in line for Confession before Mass, yet nearly everyone goes up to receive. )

Now, a Bishop or Priest may, if they are aware of a person's sins as a matter of public record-- such as the case with pro-choice politicians--refuse them the Eucharist. But as has already been stated, since there will be so many Priests administering the Eucharist, it won't be possible for them to avoid administering to those not worthy to receive it. It would be unfortunate indeed, and a bad bit of publicity, should Nancy Pelosi and other "pro-choice Catholics" receive the Eucharist in contradiction to the Pope's statements. One prays that they have enough conscience left to examine that they think better of causing such scandal.

=M=

[Rusty T]

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."

They have their reward.

rusty

[Maxentius]

LAzarus,

I seriously doubt these politicians will be refused communion in public, though I do think their disregard of Catholic faith and their disrespect for the Pope will come back to haunt them both spiritually and politically in the future.

That seems like a reason for excommunication--i.e. no communion--for those in flagrant, public violation of Church teaching on a critical issue. Not only that, they threatened the pope, showing that they are willing to put aside their own "convictions" for political expediency--i.e. they really don;t have RC convictions if we take them at their word.

Regarding excommunication, if someone in our congregation is a thief, the pastor would not excommunicate him, at least for a while. But if he publicly advocates thievery, and persists in his own thievery in public and then demands communion, the pastor would rightly excommunicate him, basically saying "Until you repent, we turn you over to Satan" just a St. Paul did. This is a good gut check for the US bishops, the pope etc. I mean, didn't he just say they should be refused communion for this reason? (I am not 100% sure, and from my standpoint, there is often a lot of parsing of the popes sayings).

For the Church to refuse them communion at this juncture would give these politicians more attention than they warrant and would distract from the real purpose of the Pope's journey to America.

It may waken them up as to the danger to their souls. It may also burst their pride bubbles. And sometimes one has to do what is right.

I would not be surprised, however, if the American Bishops decided to take the bull by the horns and take more drastic steps once the Pope has returned to Rome, and in doing so I think they would have the sympathy and support of a majority of American Catholics. I hope these politicians will avoid this confrontation. It can only lead to bitterness and division.

I think that would put politics above principle. Not that Lutherans are innocent of this, but the critique of the papacy would more or less write itself--the pope said they shouldn't receive, then he allowed them to at a mass over which he presided. So much for the "fiat currency" of what the pope says. And I have not even begun to mention the spiritual dimension of this--do you believe Christ would commune them, or would he call them descendants of the devil, a murderer from the beginning?

I vote for the latter. To commune these people--especially these circumstances--in my opinion, is to turn the popes words to mere ink or recycled electrons, because they can obviously be ignored.

These are just my hypotheticals, I am not critiquing the RCC as such in this thread.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Oh yeah, I loved this quote too:

" If Catholic legislators are scorned and held out for ridicule by Church leaders on the basis of a single issue, the Church will lose strong advocates on a wide range of issues that relate to the core of important Catholic social teaching," they wrote. "Moreover, criticism of us on a matter that is essentially one of personal morality will deter other Catholics from entering politics, and in the long run the Church will suffer."

Boo friggin' hoo.

But that (the highlit phrase) is the heart of the matter, isn't it? For the Pope, and I expect the majority of Catholics (but of course I'm not RC and am open to correction on this point), it's not a matter of personal morality at all. Doesn't the Roman church classify abortion as a form of murder?

That's one thing that has always (conf/am)used me about the public persona of American Catholics in general (noting that, as always, there are exceptions to general rules): this blantant cross-polination between Papal Authority and American personal independence: "We adhere to the Pope's authority, except when we don't." As a "priesthood of the believer" Baptist, of course I'm not against personal independence in one's religious beliefs, but I find it hard to understand how people hold to that and yet at the same time claim to be members in good standing of a church that is diametrically opposed to personal interpretation or independence in doctrinal matters.

Doesn't rejection of the Pope's (and, as I understand it, the Magisterium's) authority on matters of abortion mark them out as schismatics, not true Catholics?

I expect Pelosi, at the very least, intends to use this as self-promotion: If she gets away with taking communion in the Pope's presence, she'll use it as ammunition to argue that the Roman church "supports" her pro-choice position. Whether that's equally true of the other "Catholic" politicos involved, I can't say.

The (clarification on all this is sincerely requested) Curtmudgeon

[Macgawd]

Doesn't rejection of the Pope's (and, as I understand it, the Magisterium's) authority on matters of abortion mark them out as schismatics, not true Catholics?

Yes, it does. Abortion is what the Church calls an "intrinsically evil" act, meaning that there is no possible moral or ethical justification for the act, and is always and everywhere sinful. This teaching of the Church is not optional, so those who call themselves "pro-choice Catholics" are only Catholic in the sense that that's how they self-identify--they are in fact in grave mortal sin, and therefore not in full communion with the Church.

=M=

[Maxentius]

But that (the highlit phrase) is the heart of the matter, isn't it? For the Pope, and I expect the majority of Catholics (but of course I'm not RC and am open to correction on this point), it's not a matter of personal morality at all. Doesn't the Roman church classify abortion as a form of murder?

To my knowledge, yes it does. As a Lutheran I am to a degree looking in from the outside on this issue--though we have some of the same problems with abortion supporters--though the LC-MS has spoken rather clearly about the issue. I am with you basically, American Catholics (and I think Christians in general) have little use for authority. However, in the RC milieu, that should be a non-starter. What I think we see here is what might be termed "cultural Catholicism" run amok. And some appear to think they have the right to receive.

What I also found troubling is the implicit threat of not supporting the RCC on other issues, if the pope makes an issue of abortion and Communion. I mean, aren't they supporting the RC position because it is right, or out of conviction? If they believe it is right and they will not support it because the pope won't bend to their wills, what does that say about their Catholicism? Aren't they really "Catholics" and not Catholics--with all that the scare quotes imply?

That's one thing that has always (conf/am)used me about the public persona of American Catholics in general (noting that, as always, there are exceptions to general rules): this blantant cross-polination between Papal Authority and American personal independence: "We adhere to the Pope's authority, except when we don't."

It is due to a lack of discipline IMO. And I think it is a general problem in western countries--yes even among the Lutherans and Orthodox!

<Sarcasm>

We mustn't judge, that would be mean. Better dead than mean, because being mean is very, very, VERY bad, and un-nice.

The only ones we may safely judge are those who dare to judge others, because then we repay them for their meanness, and in turn show how nice and good we are in comparison--which is the goal of Christianity, and all the other great religions. We must bow before our new androgynous god, Nice, and his/her/its consort, Gaia--because any human activity which harms a flea is not nice at all.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

Doesn't rejection of the Pope's (and, as I understand it, the Magisterium's) authority on matters of abortion mark them out as schismatics, not true Catholics?

It would seem to be a no brainier to me; and now we have what amounts to a public challenge to toe pope--commune us or face the consequences. I find this to be awful, and I am not even RC!

I expect Pelosi, at the very least, intends to use this as self-promotion: If she gets away with taking communion in the Pope's presence, she'll use it as ammunition to argue that the Roman church "supports" her pro-choice position. Whether that's equally true of the other "Catholic" politicos involved, I can't say.

Given what has been said by her and other pro "choice" pols, and what seems to me like a direct challenge to the pope, it may de-fang the RCCs teachings on life, if not repeal it. That would be very bad for the wider Church, IMO.

[Rusty T]

I've been thinking about this all day. It bothers me to no end. On one hand I see the Popes of the last half of the 20th and now in the 21st centuries really trying to emphasize the brotherhood of Bishops throughout the world. Much of this is catechetical in nature and much of it is because of an explicit reapproachment to the eastern churches. The local Bishop is the one in charge of his flock, and I know the Pope strives to strike the balance of Vicar of Christ and Brother Bishop. It's almost a damned if he does or damned if he doesn't kind of situation. If the Pope starts interfering more in the handling of diocesan work (such as excommunication - witness Archbishop Burke's recent decisions), he will be accused of a return to the papal dictatorship (whatever) that so many accuse the church of possessing in the past. If the Pope allows his brother Bishops to govern their diocese, while at the same time clearly stating the truths of the Church, he runs the risk of being accused of having no real power.

Me? I'm simply going to pray for the Pope and for these politicians. But more importantly, I'm going to pray for stronger Bishops throughout the world.

rusty

[Macgawd]

I've been thinking about this all day. It bothers me to no end. On one hand I see the Popes of the last half of the 20th and now in the 21st centuries really trying to emphasize the brotherhood of Bishops throughout the world. Much of this is catechetical in nature and much of it is because of an explicit reapproachment to the eastern churches. The local Bishop is the one in charge of his flock, and I know the Pope strives to strike the balance of Vicar of Christ and Brother Bishop. It's almost a damned if he does or damned if he doesn't kind of situation. If the Pope starts interfering more in the handling of diocesan work (such as excommunication - witness Archbishop Burke's recent decisions), he will be accused of a return to the papal dictatorship (whatever) that so many accuse the church of possessing in the past. If the Pope allows his brother Bishops to govern their diocese, while at the same time clearly stating the truths of the Church, he runs the risk of being accused of having no real power.

Me? I'm simply going to pray for the Pope and for these politicians. But more importantly, I'm going to pray for stronger Bishops throughout the world.

rusty

I can appreciate the Church's desire to reconnect with the Eastern Church, and its efforts to allow the Bishops more control over their individual dioceses, but there has to be a breaking point where the Pope can and must exercise his Divinely appointed authority, whether we like it or not. After all, the Church is not a Democracy, so why should individual Catholics or Christians as a whole be offended when the Vicar of Christ exercises his rightful authority over his flock? It is the one thing that has always frustrated me about the modern Church: it's seeming unwillingness to do what was is necessary to reinforce Catholic doctrine among the faithful.

=M=

[Rusty T]

I can appreciate the Church's desire to reconnect with the Eastern Church, and its efforts to allow the Bishops more control over their individual dioceses, but there has to be a breaking point where the Pope can and must exercise his Divinely appointed authority, whether we like it or not. After all, the Church is not a Democracy, so why should individual Catholics or Christians as a whole be offended when the Vicar of Christ exercises his rightful authority over his flock? It is the one thing that has always frustrated me about the modern Church: it's seeming unwillingness to do what was is necessary to reinforce Catholic doctrine among the faithful.

=M=

I tend to agree with Shea on this one: http://markshea.blogspot.com/2008_04...24019658746724

It's a comment in reference to the abuse scandal, but much of it applies to the current situation.

rusty