You are hereVatican: Deny communion to abortion-rights politicians

Vatican: Deny communion to abortion-rights politicians

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/ on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/ on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 149.

By Parker - Posted on 23 April 2004

A top Vatican cardinal called on priests Friday to deny communion to Roman Catholic politicians who support legalized abortion -- a move that could have implications for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry.

chrisliv's picture


Now you're talking!

This is good point of Separation, and how a Church can rule and reign with Christ is a non-violent way, through Love and Truth.

It would be nice for state-incorporated "churches" in North America to begin to follow a similar lead by denying membership to anyone in the US military who is busy killing hundreds and thousands by dropping bombs with depleted uranium onto "post-birth" men, woman, and children who had nothing to do with 9/11, in places like Iraq and elsewhere.

One of the three stated reasons for 9/11 included the fact that Washington DC was responsible for the deaths of what could be nearly a million men, women, and children, via the bombing, US led sanctions, and the effects depleted uranium on children.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

Virgil's picture

It's about time.....why did the Vatican wait so long for this to happen?

Parker's picture

The Vatican didn't "wait so long."

First, the dilemma of lapsed Catholics and "pro-life" stances (Kerry, Kennedy, et. al) had to become an issue. (The whole concept is shocking and unthinkable to faithful Catholics.)

Next, the stated justification provided by MOST of these lapsed liberal Catholics (like Kerry and Kennedy) is as follows: "abortion is wrong, but we must govern a 'pluralist society' and not try to legislate Church Law for the civil sphere. We must not mix religion and politics."

Once this justification was offered by unfaithful Catholics, it was fully rejected. The Church has released an offical response to such nonsense here:

On the Participation of Catholics in Political Life

Finally, a word about denying communion. Denying communion in the Catholic Church is a severe judgment made by the Church concerning the soul of a baptized Catholic. It claims that a person is not walking in a manner worthy of God and is in danger of His judgment.

To pronounce such a judgment on an individual, the Church must first prove actual culpability for sin. That is, the crime in question must be clear and clearly defined before an accusation can be made. The Church is in the process of clarifying to its members worldwide that providing political assylum to abortionists equates to being a true accomplice in actual abortions. That is, Kerry, Kennedy, and others are guilty of actual abortions. This is what's at stake, and what is being discussed by the bishops. The whole response is in process, and is just now beginning to be addressed in a global manner.

Same goes with clarification on the issue of homosexual marriage. The bishops are developing clear statements and reasonings that will serve to rebuke and correct any Catholics that are unclear about--or openly defiant of-- Church teaching.

Hope that helps.

Virgil's picture

What do you mean the Vatican didn't wait long? Catholic democrats have been pushing abortion for decades and we never heard a word from the church? How is that not waiting long?

Parker's picture

First, Catholic democrats have not been "pushing abortion." With very few known exceptions, Democrat Catholics claim to be "personally against abortion." However, they then claim that they must leave their "religious beliefs out of political life." Sound familiar? Sounds like a certain preterist friend around here who hates the idea that politics and religion should and do mix.

The idea that religion and politics should be kept separate is a broad confusion in our society, even among Christians of all denominations. The Catholic Church has begun to supply positive instruction to Catholic politicians to help clear up confusion and bring clear directives. This is good, useful, and *necessary* to combat certain Catholics that claim the Church and State must be kept separate, that they must leave personal religious convictions out of American politics.

Now, in fairness to such confused Catholics, you must remember that American history has long maintained anti-Catholic bias and distrust. It was asserted that Catholics should NOT be allowed into politics at all because "they would be duty bound to legislate in favor of official Church teachings" and not American democratic desires. This came to a head during the John F. Kennedy presidential campaign. John Kennedy repeatedly answered to a distrustful American public that he would NOT be bound to legislate in favor of Church teachings, but would only legislate the "will of the American people" ( i.e., whatever he thought his constituents that elected him wanted).

In spite of confusion on the matter of Church and State, the Vatican has made it clear that Catholics are indeed bound to advocate and advance the ideals of Christ's Church--especially in general matters of civil law and the common good where applicable. (I linked to that document that speaks to this issue.)

So, while there has been confusion among some Catholics over the Church/State relationship, the Vatican has been providing clear instructions for things that perhaps should have been self-evident. (Yet, the relationship between Church and State is NOT always self-evident.)

Once the policy is clearly defined, the local bishops will be expected to teach it and act upon it where necessary. They that defy the teachings will be subject to church discipline such as denial of communion, with a *potential* for excommuncation.

Hope that helps.

Parker's picture

Whoops. Sentence should have read:

First, the dilemma of lapsed Catholics and "PRO-CHOICE" stances (Kerry, Kennedy, et. al) had to become an issue.

Make a note of it. Thanks.

Islamaphobe's picture

From my very non-Catholic background it appears to be the case that theological liberalism has attained such a stonghold among the prelates of the Catholic church that something very akin to moral relativism dominates biblical interpretation and the enforcement of Church rules and doctrine. No wonder, then, that such politicians as Kerry, Kennedy, Leahy, Daschle, etc. flout what the Church nominally preaches without fear of being taken on by the hierarchy, which seems to exist in a moral fog of its own creation. At some point in such a process, the Church comes to stand for nothing.

Parker's picture

As you said, "from your very non-Catholic background." Nothing personal, but your lack of information on the subject shows a bit.

First, Daschle has been under rebukes from his pastor and bishop for years! In fact, he may no longer call himself a member of the Catholic Church! Read the article on Daschle and the hierarchy. I may do some looking into it, but I don't think Kennedy and Leahy are doing any better with the hierarchy, and this recent charge from the Vatican spells trouble for Kerry (and the other apostates like him).

Next, theological liberalism does not have a stronghold among the ranking prelates of the Catholic Church. The Vatican, the archbishops, and the Catechism are all staunchly and unapologetically orthodox and conservative. The magisterium, too, is untouched by "theological liberalism."

Theological liberalism exists far down the chain of command, with various pockets existing among the American bishops and among *SOME* european nations as well. In non-Western countries, however, it's nearly impossible to find a "theological liberal." It just isn't an issue.

Islamaphobe's picture

Your comments are informed and well-received. I must respond, however, that I do not completely agree with them. Although I have read that Daschle has received some criticism from a bishop in his area, I know of nothing indicating that the Catholic Church has acted to deny such politicos as the illustrious ones I mentioned access to the sacraments of the Church. They proclaim in public that they are entitled to believe as they wish without, to my knowledge, being publicly rebuked on the matter by the top officials of the Church. I concede that I may have missed something on this.

As for the theological liberalism part, a lot depends upon what you sweep under the meaning of that term. I have looked over considerable portions of the New American Bible, which, I believe, is the official Bible used in Catholic services in the U.S. and has the endorsement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In my opinion, it is thoroughly liberal in its reading of many disputed points of Scripture. That, to me, is theological liberalism in spades. The U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has taken numerous stands that I find to be politically liberal and difficult to reconcile with how I read the Bible. So I have to disagree with you to a considerable extent, but I'll sure concede that the Church is a bulwark against much of the secularism that we find in this country and much more so in Europe.

Recent comments


Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
No only registered users should comment
What are you talking about?
Total votes: 43