Priest: No Communion For Obama Supporters

[thessalonian]

I will retract a bit of what I said above in deference to CCC 1415. Which says that anyone who knows they are in mortal sin must not recieve. But I stand by that if you know you have committed a grave offense you cannot know for certain whether or not you are in mortal sin and so you are to confess such an offense. Voting for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a reasonable alternative, whether you agree or disagree with the Church on the matter is subjectively grave and confession so be attended before receiving the eucharist.

[Excelsior1027]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1701158' date='Nov 14 2008, 10:27 AM']I will retract a bit of what I said above in deference to CCC 1415. Which says that anyone who knows they are in mortal sin must not recieve. But I stand by that if you know you have committed a grave offense you cannot know for certain whether or not you are in mortal sin and so you are to confess such an offense. Voting for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a reasonable alternative, whether you agree or disagree with the Church on the matter is subjectively grave and confession so be attended before receiving the eucharist.[/quote]
Okay, I understand now what you're saying there. I was just saying that I think there may be some people who don't know that they've committed a grave offense, even if that number of people is small.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Excelsior1027

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1701143' date='Nov 14 2008, 08:09 AM']I beg to differ. Since this was a [i]qualitative[/i] assessment, each person had to make a decision as informed by his or her conscience.[/quote]
Yes, and if the voter's "informed" decision was to cast a ballot for a man who supports the murder of the innocent, then he (i.e., the voter) must live with the consequences, which includes the possibility of excommunication from the Church for embracing a viewpoint that is contrary to the Gospel.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1701169' date='Nov 14 2008, 11:40 AM']Yes, and if the voter's "informed" decision was to cast a ballot for a man who supports the murder of the innocent, then he (i.e., the voter) must live with the consequences, which includes the possibility of excommunication from the Church for embracing a viewpoint that is contrary to the Gospel.[/quote]

Without being able to peer into everyone's conscience, it is not possible for a priest to make a blanket statement of the sort 'everyone who voted for Obama must repent', he can however state 'everyone in state of mortal sin, or everyone who supported abortion, ect...'

That is where I believe the statement falls in error. It is not inconceivable that one in the best of their conscience voted for Obama. just look at all the deceiving rhetoric circulating around; many can easily get confused even though they try to exercise their conscience as best as they can.

Also, keep i nmind that not every faithful who is of age to vote is educated or intelligent (not that this matterrs to the value of the person!).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1701176' date='Nov 14 2008, 08:51 AM']Without being able to peer into everyone's conscience, it is not possible for a priest to make a blanket statement of the sort 'everyone who voted for Obama must repent', he can however state 'everyone in state of mortal sin, or everyone who supported abortion, ect...'

That is where I believe the statement falls in error. It is not inconceivable that one in the best of their conscience voted for Obama. just look at all the deceiving rhetoric circulating around; many can easily get confused even though they try to exercise their conscience as best as they can.

Also, keep i nmind that not every faithful who is of age to vote is educated or intelligent (not that this matterrs to the value of the person!).[/quote]
He doesn't need to peer into anyone's conscience. Public scandal is a sufficient reason to prohibit a person from receiving communion.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Excelsior1027' post='1701166' date='Nov 14 2008, 10:33 AM']Okay, I understand now what you're saying there. I was just saying that I think there may be some people who don't know that they've committed a grave offense, even if that number of people is small.[/quote]


This is possible in some instances but it is not simply an excuse to say "well I didn't know" if they had the opportunity to be informed and didn't take. Which I believe is common these days. People don't read or listen to what they don't want to hear. My guess is the priest also gave a sermon that could leave no doudt before the election.

[thessalonian]

Didacus,

Your statement assumes that one must receive or is entitled to recieve. Even if not in mortal sin one does not have to receive and if you have committed a grave sin such as this it is best not to. It is no sin not to recieve if you are in doudt about the state of your soul. But it is a sin to recieve if you are in mortal sin. Those who voted for oboma have to be in doudt except in rare circumstance. It's a grave matter.

[Excelsior1027]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1701178' date='Nov 14 2008, 10:53 AM']This is possible in some instances but it is not simply an excuse to say "well I didn't know" if they had the opportunity to be informed and didn't take. Which I believe is common these days. People don't read or listen to what they don't want to hear. My guess is the priest also gave a sermon that could leave no doudt before the election.[/quote]
I'm not saying it was an excuse. There could be some people who will find out the gravity of what they did and repent, however unlikely that may sound. And yes, I know that many priests and bishops spoke up before the election. I'm just saying that making a sweeping statement without knowing for sure the culpability of every individual soul seems like going a bit too far.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Excelsior1027

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Excelsior1027' post='1701166' date='Nov 14 2008, 08:33 AM']Okay, I understand now what you're saying there. I was just saying that I think there may be some people who don't know that they've committed a grave offense, even if that number of people is small.[/quote]
The exclusion of a person from communion is designed as a medicinal penalty that should awaken him to the gravity of the crime of abortion. Once his conscience has been awakened to the murderous ideology of "choice" he would be empowered to reform his mind ([i]metanoia[/i]) according to the teaching of the Church and thus be restored to holy communion.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Norseman82]

Well, in the article I read regarding the Bishops' meeting this week, apparently the bishops thought that the Faithful Citizenship document would get the message across to vote pro-life, but they were surprised that people were basing their decisions on issues other than abortion. I have a feeling that they will revise this in the future to outrightly state that abortion should be the number one issue to consider.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1701185' date='Nov 14 2008, 09:09 AM']Well, in the article I read regarding the Bishops' meeting this week, apparently the bishops thought that the Faithful Citizenship document would get the message across to vote pro-life, but they were surprised that people were basing their decisions on issues other than abortion. I have a feeling that they will revise this in the future to outrightly state that abortion should be the number one issue to consider.[/quote]
That is because the document was poorly written.

[Excelsior1027]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1701183' date='Nov 14 2008, 11:03 AM']The exclusion of a person from communion is designed as a medicinal penalty that should awaken him to the gravity of the crime of abortion. Once his conscience has been awakened to the murderous ideology of "choice" he would be empowered to reform his mind ([i]metanoia[/i]) according to the teaching of the Church and thus be restored to holy communion.[/quote]
CCC 1415:
[indent][indent]Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.[/indent][/indent]
If someone is not aware that they have sinned mortally, then they shouldn't be refused communion. That's what I'm trying to say here. I realize that refusing communion is a medicinal act, but that's for those who do fully know what they have done and still stand by it.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Excelsior1027' post='1701187' date='Nov 14 2008, 09:13 AM']CCC 1415:
[indent][indent]Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.[/indent][/indent]
If someone is not aware that they have sinned mortally, then they shouldn't be refused communion. That's what I'm trying to say here. I realize that refusing communion is a medicinal act, but that's for those who do fully know what they have done and still stand by it.[/quote]
One who holds a position at variance with the moral doctrine of the Church is not in a state of grace. The person should be informed of their error and once they have made a proper act of repentance they can be restored to communion.

Moreover, on a primary principle of the moral law (in this particular case support for murder), one is not to assume invincible ignorance.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Excelsior1027]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1701188' date='Nov 14 2008, 11:16 AM']One who holds a position at variance with the moral doctrine of the Church is not in a state of grace. The person should be informed of their error and once they have made a proper act of repentance they can be restored to communion.

Moreover, on a primary principle of the moral law (in this particular case support for murder), one is not to assume invincible ignorance.[/quote]
So you're saying that someone is not in a state of grace even when they did [i]not[/i] know that what they were doing was a grave matter? The Catechism says that for something to be a mortal sin the person must have full knowledge that it is a grave matter.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Excelsior1027' post='1701190' date='Nov 14 2008, 09:24 AM']So you're saying that someone is not in a state of grace even when they did [i]not[/i] know that what they were doing was a grave matter? The Catechism says that for something to be a mortal sin the person must have full knowledge that it is a grave matter.[/quote]
What I am saying is that Church law permits (and in fact requires) that a cleric not give communion to a person who has publicly taken a position against a doctrine of the faith, and voting for Obama would qualify as a public act. Thus, the priest in question is within his rights (and is actually doing his duty) by telling Catholics who voted for Obama that they cannot receive holy communion.

Of course a person who voted for Obama is free to recant his error and be restored to communion.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1701186' date='Nov 14 2008, 11:12 AM']That is because the document was poorly written.[/quote]

I agree. It should have stated clearly somewhere that abortion is priority #1. But I suspect that the document may have been written by some subcommittee bureaucrat.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Norseman82

[Excelsior1027]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1701191' date='Nov 14 2008, 11:28 AM']What I am saying is that Church law permits (and in fact requires) that a cleric not give communion to a person who has publicly taken a position against a doctrine of the faith, and voting for Obama would qualify as a public act. Thus, the priest in question is within his rights (and is actually doing his duty) by telling Catholics who voted for Obama that they cannot receive holy communion.

Of course a person who voted for Obama is free to recant his error and be restored to communion.[/quote]
Is it a public act, though, if someone doesn't go around telling everyone who they voted for? I can think of a couple people that I know that keep their voting very private.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1701193' date='Nov 14 2008, 09:30 AM']I agree. It should have stated clearly somewhere that abortion is priroity #1. But I suspect that the document may have been written by some subcommittee bureaucrat.[/quote]
The document was unclear about that particular issue, but it was also not an authentic instrument of the conjoint teaching of the bishops of the United States because it was not passed unanimously by the bishops, nor did it receive the [i]recognitio[/i] of the Holy See (see John Paul II, [i]Apostolus Suos[/i], no. 22).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Excelsior1027' post='1701194' date='Nov 14 2008, 09:33 AM']Is it a public act, though, if someone doesn't go around telling everyone who they voted for? I can think of a couple people that I know that keep their voting very private.[/quote]
They do not have to go around telling people that they voted for Obama because voting is a public act even though the ballots cast are secret. In this particular case the priest in question is acting within his rights as pastor of his parish in warning the faithful who voted for Obama that they are in a state of manifest grave (and public) sin and may not receive communion until they have confessed their sin and been absolved.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Excelsior1027]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1701196' date='Nov 14 2008, 11:36 AM']They do not have to go around telling people that they voted for Obama because voting is a public act even though the ballots cast are secret. In this particular case the priest in question is acting within his rights as pastor of his parish in warning the faithful who voted for Obama that they are in a state of manifest grave (and public) sin and may not receive communion until they have confessed their sin and been absolved.[/quote]
Where can I go to learn more about how this all works in a situation of public scandal? I'd like to be well-informed.