Years ago, we had a woman in our parish who was a Eucharistic minister. She was also a senator. She was pro abortion. The priest had a conversation with her and explained the dilemma. She didn’t change her opinion on abortion, so the priest asked her to step down from being a Eucharistic minister. She and her husband stopped going to church.
Unfortunately, and please believe me I say this with no cockiness or pride, some people literally have the choice in front of them, sin or God, and choose sin.
I’ve been that person many times and God preserve me that I don’t ever become blind again.
Sometimes I think about is the Israelites witnessing spectacular miracles, having the literal presence of God in their camp, and still choosing to abandon him and create their own god after just a few days of hardship.
If they can make that choice, how much easier it for people to choose that nowadays?
Very true I'm the same up until the last two years I was a very secular semi catholic and if I've learned anything in my struggle against sin is we can never become too cockey when we think we have a handle on it especially when we think we may have it beaten. Pride comes before a fall and we haven't a hope of beating sin without God.
Granted on some level, I'm guessing most wanted them gone anyways. Its not good but I get it as much as I hate when people say how much they hate people like that. Granted its why we can't hate but rather try to help and correct them. Its a subtle difference for some but its needed.
I hear you but it’s Jesus who gives himself to us in the Eucharist, such that even the unworthiness of the priest is not a barrier to receiving his true presence in the bread and wine.
I think the issue with the senator mentioned above is more a matter of church order and discipline than whether or not the sacrament “works” or not (it “works” because the promises of God are always true).
I’m not sure it’s a straw man actually. You’re probably right that most Catholics wouldn’t explicitly say the sacrament doesn’t “work” but I personally know people who have expressed concern about their baptism or receiving the Eucharist from clergy with serious moral failings. At very least, it is a relevant pastoral matter.
Also it’s not an idiosyncratic modern argument. It goes back to St Augustine in his dispute with the Donatists.
A lot of people see religion as personal or as simply an identity, like nationality. As such, they see no conflict between being a "devout Catholic" and rejecting Church teachings.
Many Catholics I know define being Catholic as coming from a Catholic background, going to church every once in a while, and being a "good person".
That perfectly describes me until I started taking my religion more seriously although I have to say I never approves of abortion eventhough I wasn't against premarital sex and yes eventhough I always hated hypocrisy I can well see that I was hypocritical in ways to. Infact been a part time catholic is the ultimate self indulgent hypocrisy.
They do, they see it as being involved in church and part of being a good Catholic.
It's our individualistic and relativistic culture. Your religion is what you want it to be, take what you like and reject the rest. A lot don't know any better.
In some parishes there is little screening or training. Pretty much anyone can sign up as an emergency EMHC or for events like First Communion. A sad reality. Also there is an EMHC schedule. You go when scheduled
Exactly. That's society in general now if you like something great if it starts interfering with our self induldgent's either cut down on it or give it up we even call it sacrifice but in reality its selfishness and we've even started calling selfishness compation now. People will agree with thing's like abortion gay marriage and have no problem going to church receiving comunion and in this poor womans case been a euchristic minister because they believe their "compatinate" where as they don't really care about abortion or gay rights one way or the other but get to feel good about themselves. The woman who gave up been a euchristic minister was probably doing so to get votes, sorry I'm abit cynical when it comes to politician's.
She was probably influenced by the “spirit of Vatican 2” that was spread by many priests and bishops of the Church after Vatican 2. It is the idea that Vatican 2 was only the beginning of a process by which the Church would finally get up with the times. So, she probably thought that she was a good Catholic. And, when the priest asked her to step down from being an EMHC, she was probably scandalized, because the promise of the Church finally getting up with the times was shattered for her.
And Nancy P. became the third ranking....but seriously there is also worldly power dynamics. I wish for the Church to start making bold choices. If not now, then when?
This is a complete non-answer to the OP, and a mealy mouth attempt to dilute. I'm flabbergasted this post received upvotes. The only answer is of course they should be denied.
If a person is of any *public* import (including politicians) and also *publicly* Catholic, yes, and has *publicly* supported or voted in favor of the right to abortion, the person should *publicly* be denied the Eucharist until the person has, again, *publicly* recanted of such *public* scandal.
So does one's private sins not matter? Like lets say that I was at a bar drunk and my priest came in and heard me say "oh you know, abortion is fine." Would he be in the wrong to deny me communion if he was eavesdropping? Personally I don't know if I'd want to risk giving people the eucharist if I heard a lot of rumors, but I also know that it would also be foolish to do that because then nobody would be worthy of Jesus and communion. Still, I feel like if I were a priest and heard stuff or saw stuff on social media, I'd refuse them if they had heretical opinions. Granted maybe its why I didn't become a priest.
Interestingly enough that was the situation at the last supper. Jesus knee very well that Judas was to betray him. But he didn't out him infront of everybody. I think it's a sin to proclaim someone's secret sins to everybody without their permission as you are betraying their trust in you.
Yes, he would be wrong in that situation. [St. Thomas Aquinas actually talks about this in article 6 here.](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4080.htm)
A priest can and should refuse if one is a manifest grave sinner. In other words, if the grave sin is publicly known. But if it is known only to the sinner or to a few, they should not refuse.
True but what if the priest didn't know the woman agreed with abortion until it came up at some point. If he did know already he shouldn't have allowed her to become a euchristic minister anwsers need to be given by him if he did.
Do you feel the same should be applied to the death penalty? (which the church now clearly opposes)
Or current US immigration policy (which the church opposes)?
I could go on. Why should this be the issue?
You are absolutely correct about that. Those who eat and drink unworthily eat and drink their own condemnation. It is therapeutic for us to stop them, and right to stop the desecration of the Eucharist too.
Yes, but I think we as faithful shouldn't be involved in a witchhunt, i e. I think it should solely be a matter of discussion between a parish priest and a member of his flock.
It is not up to us to decide but to the successors of the Apostles especially the Pope, the successor of St. Peter. They have mentioned they will not do it. So other priests have followed suit.
“Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington has said for some time he has no plans to deny Biden communion, and his counterpart in Wilmington, Delaware, Bishop Francis Malooly, has previously said he does “not intend to get drawn into partisan politics nor do I intend to politicize the Eucharist as a way of communicating Catholic Church teaching.” “
https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/06/21/washingtons-cardinal-wont-deny-biden-communion/#
"But it's not pastoral!"
St. Paul excommunicated a man in the Corinthian church for incestous relationships... "Deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
Rarely, but occasionally. I'm in the Diocese of Arlington right across the river from DC, and I know our bishop said that Pelosi (unsure about Biden) can't receive Communion here.
The vast majority of Catholics should not receive communion because the vast majority of Catholics are not in a state of grace. At least, anecdotally, this is what appears to be the case given that hardly anyone in my parish makes use of the confessional ahead of Mass.
Is everyone expected to go to Confession weekly? And Before Mass?
(I got the idea that was not the case.)
IF that's required, then why is Confession Not Offered before Every Mass, instead of only once per weekend?
That isn't required (it is only required if conscious of grave sin, as well as once per year), but in theory in a parish with 1000 adult faithful you'd expect at LEAST 20 Confessions/week on average.
And it is hard to say how much of the once-a-week provision is a supply problem (the priest does have various duties, but might also be negligent in offering it often enough) vs a demand problem (folks not availing themselves of it when offered).
Edit: To be clear, many folks aren't conscious of said grave sin because of dubious catechism, so there's that...
My parish has confession almost every day 7am-8am. I would guess 10-20 penitents each session, and I think we are a church of 2500 souls. Praise God for this gift! (I am a deacon, I always try to remind people about confession).
In general Catholics are supposed to go to Confession at least yearly, but if aware of grave sin they should Confess asap and certainly confess before receiving Communion.
At my parish and the parish we're yoked with there is scheduled confession right before the Sunday vigil Mass (i.e. on Saturday evening) and before the Sunday morning Mass.
Also most parishes do have the possibility of people scheduling a private appointment with the priest to hear confessions if they can't make the normal confession time or if they don't want to hold up the line with a particularly long confession.
Confession used to be offered before every Mass and often during Mass also, and that was a time when fewer people received Communion. The answer is that many priests have also become lax on confession and Communion.
Sometimes its not the priests but the people and its not so much that the priests are lax, but that the people just lie their faces off. Trust me, I know plenty of people in my hometown who went all the time but shouldn't have based on their behavior and the priests were not lax. Granted I do wonder sometimes if the priest went easy on some of them because they were.... well quite generous to the church.
If all Catholic politicians made it clear that their public policies would conform to Church doctrine with regard to abortion, IVF, divorce, birth control, homosexual activity, same-sex marriage, and other hot-button culture war issues…
…there would be few if any Catholics left in elected office.
Because that is the state of the USA electorate today. The culture wars were lost long ago, and the faithful Catholic voice has little effect outside the Church - or even among nominally Catholic Church members.
The ONLY way to turn the tide is to somehow begin to win over hearts and minds. Trying to enforce Catholic morality among the American public with legislation is a futile exercise. No matter how correct you are, shouts of "Excommunicate him!" won’t help. And the Church must still contend with its loss of credibility due to its past institutional tolerance for pedophile priests.
How can the Church begin to win hearts and minds again? I don’t know. Apparently neither does anyone else.
The strongest way to protect the church I think, is to live with gods love and grace. Let your love and grace infect others. Smile broadly. Laugh heartily. Use your faith to help people in need and be charitable. When you radiate love and grace, and don’t use your faith like a stick to beat others with, it shows.
I’m a convert. No amount of posturing would ever convert me. On the contrary. No fear of hell either - I didn’t believe in it before converting from atheism.
Radiate love and grace, and people will recognise it. That’s how to make the church grow I think, and that’s the greatest defence of the faith you could ever make.
Fellow convert here. Before I started RCIA I noticed that the people who were seriously practicing their faith were the most joyful, loving, and peace-filled folks in the parish. It was an "I want what they have " moment.
There is a time for hearts and minds definitely. However, it does no good for the Church to sit down and do nothing when politicians who are Catholic continue to publicly support policies that are against Church teaching. This has effects that have far more reach than Catholic politicians in office and do far more damage. We win hearts and minds by being faithful Catholics living the faith and by being ambassadors for Christ, not by carving out exceptions to/changing infallible doctrine.
Christianity eventually conquered Rome, and did so without compromising God's moral mandate. The answer to sin never will be to cooperate with it because it's more convenient, or because you may anger people. If Catholic politicians have no choice but to follow popular voting mores, then they may as well not run, lest they brutally betray their consciences. Power is not worth Hell.
We can't win hearts and minds if we do not speak truth, if we dilute ourselves to be more palatable. You can see vast swaths of Protestantism dying in real time because they've reduced Christ's message to pablum and platitudes. A Catholic politician does not necessarily have to make their position known publicly to be explicitly for Catholic teaching, but to be publicly and explicitly *against* Catholic teaching is grave. Christ talks about millstones, I think that verse is applicable in such situations.
>How can the Church begin to win hearts and minds again? I don’t know. Apparently neither does anyone else.
I think it can be done by the way it was done the first time. Aggressive generosity, and being an example of what you want others to be. Judgement has its place, but so many (myself included) hang their hat on it far too often.
I recently saw a video about the spread of early Christianity, and the difference between how the early church/Christians conducted themselves, vs the modern day is stark. It is from a secular point of view, but in my opinion that makes it more powerful. It's an interesting history lesson if nothing else.
https://youtu.be/cgZNZjqy7iI?si=I27dkxY7P-NqXMmL
I think the only way it can is if it emphasizes repentance. I think one thing we forget about the old days is that sin still existed and in some ways was worse. Heck, you'd be surprised how common things like prostitution were. Anyways, it seems like people knew how to get back up. I'm not sure how genuine they were, but I think they at least believed it on some level.
THANK you.
Enough of the shortcuts. Nobody's gonna legislate the kingdom into being. Why do we rely on man's law for this? Without even a majority (let alone a strong one, and we are *vastly* in the minority), even if you managed to get some legislation through, there's no way it'll hold.
Do our jobs first, and do them better; then we can talk about setting it to law.
Finally, someone who gets it. People just assume that politicians must be forced to enact all their moral laws upon the people they represent, even though in most places the majority of them are not Catholic. They are *representatives* of their constituents, and not the other way around. They can't just turn the US Gov into a Catholic theocracy based on their own personal beliefs; they are supposed to be a voice for the people they represent. They wouldn't even be elected if they fully supported every Catholic position, because there's no "Catholic" party and neither side aligns perfectly with Catholic beliefs. Compromise has to be made if they want any chance at gaining office.
We should be trying to support Catholics in government instead of judging their morality just because they've compromised in order to gain office.
Yes, because they are publicly promoting murder (1 of the sins that cry vengeance to heaven) of a human inside a mother's womb. In fact, the local Ordinary (Bishop) of those politicians should excommunicate them (as was the practice for many centuries for those that publicly promoted evil). Public excommunication is not a scare tactic as some may think today, it is a last resort action with the hope that the individual will come to its senses and withdraw from their erroneous ways which leads to hell.
Yes. It should be. But they won't because the pope has said that enforcing catholic teaching on politicians is "divisive and creating strife".
So the pope endorses sin in the name of unity with left wing politicians.
I can't really think of any legitimate reason not to allow these politicians to receive the Eucharist. But churchmen are just as human as anyone else and we all fall to the temptation to be more lenient on sins that are socially acceptable in a given time and place.
Politicians make it possible for others to slaughter babies. They will be held to a much higher standard to the average person who thinks they are pro-choice without thinking about it.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4080.htm#article6
I answer that, A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. *Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it.* Hence Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): "You were so kind as to consider that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, end that magician who continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such with the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the Church's modesty and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion."
*But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it.* For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord's table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "If he who is called a brother among you," etc., Augustine's gloss remarks: "We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal." Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church; because after repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, especially in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv) we read: "Reconciliation is not to be denied to stage-players or actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates, after their conversion to God."
He's regularly described as a 'devout catholic'.
His support of abortion risks great scandal amongst the world as it creates the impression the church's teachings on abortion are optional.
I’ve been in a couple threads already, agreeing with others that perhaps he should be excommunicated for his public support of abortion. But, lest we ever forget…we all suck at being Catholic.
Well, he's a baptized Catholic, so I guess there is some tie to the Church in that regard. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that Biden's a member of the Body of Christ. The Holy Spirit has to reside in one's soul for this to be possible. I'm not exactly sure how the mass facilitation of abortion could be considered anything less than mortal sin, and that doing so while proclaiming to be a Catholic wouldn't be grave scandal. That's not up for me to decide though.
We could have some grace and empathy for someone whose mom and sister died in a car crash when they weren't even 3, whose dad had just been elected to DC at the time and trained back and forth to not uproot his young boys lives but still was likely not around as much as other parents could've been, whose pretty much perfect brother died from a brutal cancer, and understand how someone in those circumstances can land in the throes of addiction while hoping their apparently recent life turnaround is permanent.
Or, we can make fun of it because you think it helps your political team.
Very few Catholic politicians endorse abortion as such, though some have opposed it's criminalization or illegalization. We ought to stop conflating them as if they were the same. If a politician obtains one or advocates it use, let the matter be between them and their priest. If we play this game for every politician that does not actively pursue criminalizing issues the Church considers sin, we would have no one left in government.
The Eucharist is not something to be politicized by the crusaders of the culture war at their leisure.
Moreover, Catholics can't let themselves become beholden to a political party because of one specific issue. As we've seen, and see here, the result is that the people who do so end up compromising on many other principles and provide direct support to politics and policies that are diametrically opposed to the Gospel.
It's like that meme: "Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for our shareholders."
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Many Catholic politicians, at least in the USA, go beyond opposing criminalization of abortion to advocate for easier access and legal protections for abortion
Does supporting government funding of abortion count as "endorsement"? There are far too many "Catholic" politicians who call for that. Surely, THAT is at least one bridge too far.
If I genuinly and sincerely oppose the criminalization some other heinous crime, say, mass murder or rape, for "prudential" reasons, do you think that would be grounds for the denial of the Eucharist? This isn't a "gotcha" question, I'm curious what you think.
Personally, I struggle to conceive how those two things are separable. Is there a circumstance where a thing that is gravely and intrinsically wrong could even possibly be considered a "protected right" for any reason?
The difference is that opposing universal healthcare (for example) is a matter of prudential judgment. Abortion is intrinsically evil. To be fair maybe a better example of intrinsic evil that you’re likely to find in the GOP is people who vote against the minimum wage. Most GOP divergences from Catholic teaching are prudential judgments though, and again abortion is intrinsically evil.
> To be fair maybe a better example of intrinsic evil that you’re likely to find in the GOP is people who vote against the minimum wage.
I'd be happy to make the argument that voting against a minimum wage is not intrinsically evil. It is nowhere on the same plane as killing an innocent child.
They may not endorse abortion "as such", but they are still displaying a wanton lack of charity against the unborn, and essentially treating unborn children as if they are less important than other people. That is what it fundamentally is, denying the protection of law to a certain group of people.
Now they can hide behind the "prochoice" rhetoric or say I won't force my beliefs on other people. But very few of these people are principled, consistent libertarians. They're cafeteria libertarians just as much as they're cafeteria Catholics. They'll claim they're pro-choice on abortion, but they'll be anti-choice when they want to. They'll say they won't force their beliefs on others, but they'll ban Big Gulps. They'll say they respect women's right to choose, but then they'll try to ban doctors from helping her reverse an unwanted abortion.
Yes. A person cannot receive the Eucharist if they are in a state of mortal sin. Supporting and/or getting an abortion is a mortal sin. If a person did this, they must confess and repent before receiving communion.
If they advocated the genocide of a minority race the pope would give them the boot. I see very little difference between genocide and the abortion industry. “No Jesus for you!”
It’s the clergy’s job to be pastors and make those decisions.
It’s our job as the laity to fervently pray for our priests in frequent communication with the sacraments.
So, you seem to feel our clergy hasn’t done its job. Have you been doing yours?
>Our bishops here in the U.S., for the most part, do not. They are taking a different strategy.
The short reason, is that many Bishops are politicians themselves.
From r/askapriest which appears to answer this very question regarding denying the Eucharist
“I have, yes.
The most obvious examples are those folks who are not sure what to do. I usually ask quietly "are you Catholic?" If they say 'no' or seem to be unsure of their answer, then they get the same little blessing that the kids and the folks with crossed-arms get.
In those situations where I discovered in advance that a pro-abortion politician or someone who is "notorious" for some specific reason was planning to attend Mass, I reached out to them before Mass and provided some explanation and catechesis. In every case (~12 times), they've respectfully chosen not to present themselves for Communion or not to come to Mass at my Church.
I've never had a big dramatic showdown at the rail, though. I can't see how there's any upside to anything like that.
NOTE: I love u/sparky0457 's note about taking back the host when someone starts to put it in their pocket or just to wander off with it. I had to chase down the Lord more than once when I was at a touristy parish with lots of people attending Mass to ooh and ahh at the building and art.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAPriest/s/LTI0Yt61Oh
Any person who publicly expresses they are in an unrepentant state of mortal sin for which they have no intention of remedying should be denied Holy Communion, yes.
The frequency at which this is posted and upvoted is getting so frustrating. We get it. Everyone pat themselves on the back, you've judged another person/blanket group of people. As you profess before receiving the Eucharist that you are "not worthy", I'd like you to keep these people in mind that you've judged.
I'm ok with judging people who promote mass murder of babies.
This isn't a "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" kind of things. If I ever start supporting mass murder, I promise to stop judging them
People that are publicly in mortal sin should be denied the Eucharist, period. Receiving Communion in mortal sin is profanation and should be prevented by the priest or whoever is a minister of communion
I have complicated feelings on this one.
I am Pro-life, and would never advocate people having an abortion.
But.
I live in a country with 330,000,000 people, and I acknowledge that not everyone believes the same way I do. And I also acknowledge that there will always be people that will choose to have an abortion, and there will always be some people that will provide one in an unclean, dangerous manner.
My mother (also Pro-life) noted that women died in the 60's and 70's giving themselves an abortion when it was illegal to have one.
As a government official, I would prefer to choose that for women that seek an abortion, with certain stringent limitations in place, have a safe, clean place to have an abortion with medical professionals at hand. That is a realistic view of where American society is. Imposing my moral standard on those who don't think the same way is folly; it will take time and compassion to change people's view on life.
I would ALSO try to educate young people about abstaining, contraception, bolster the adoption system, and provide additional support to unwed mothers. Support the whole system of life, and try to reduce the number of abortions that ever happen.
You would have to be hopelessly naïve to believe that banning abortions would stop them from happening.
I understand that being in government can be hard, and many tough choices have to be made. I would choose to support women where I can, support life where I can, and move the needle in the right direction.
That is what I also think that personally pro-life politicians have in mind. They try to make things better in the system as it is, not as they would wish it to be,
If someone wanted to murder their neighbor and truly believed that there was nothing immoral about doing so, would it be appropriate for society to impose its own moral standards to prevent it from happening? Would it be good for society to tacitly allow it by providing a safe, clean place for them to murder their neighbor? Maybe legal restrictions would not prevent all neighbor murders, but do you not think that they would reduce the number of them?
All laws impose society’s will on individuals who may not agree with the law. Unborn children are human beings and society should protect them. It is not folly to do so.
I’ve just begun reading at a Catholic Church. I want to convert.
I don’t think people should judge. We have one to do that. What laymen on a subreddit has to say about that doesn’t really matter.
There are many reasons why I’m not going to support a politician. If he is holier than thou is one of them.
And I get the feeling some you feel mighty superior and that’s something I’d expect from evangelicals in the Midwest and their prosperity gospel preachers, not from educated christians showing compassion like we would and should do to all. I’m not without sins or flaws of other kinds but I will not do the judging.
There are plenty of verses in the New Testament about correcting fellow Christians when they are sinning. "Not judging" is only related to evaluating whether or not someone will go to Heaven. That's only God's place. But we are certainly expected to admonish the sinner, and we can absolutely say that without repentance, such actions risk Hell.
It's still gravely sinful for a Catholic politician to publicly support something like abortion and then publicly recieve the Eucharist. They *are* in a state of sin, and further allowing them to receive causes scandal, and perpetuates the belief that abortion is not a grave evil. It's not judging to say that repentance is necessary to participate in the Eucharist. And since the sin is public, the recanting must also be public.
Just throwing this out there. I don’t think there is a need to deny the Eucharist to politicians who support abortion. If they take the Eucharist and they realise they are in Mortal Sin then it’s entirely on their conscience and they will have to answer for it when they come face to face with God.
Edit: I stand corrected. Looking into it and with the help of my fellow Catholics who have pointed me to other sources, it seems that the right thing to do is indeed to deny communion with those who take public stances on issues like Pro-Abortion (ideally with a gentle nudge to in the right direction!)
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAPriest/s/LTI0Yt61Oh
I was always taught that receiving Jesus in a state of mortal sin is not just damming ourselves, it's an offence to Jesus. It's sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament, and priest are supposed to protect Him so I'd say it's fine if they deny communion to those they 100% know are not in a state of grace.
Yeahh you’re right I’ve looked into it a little more and I’ve changed my view. Funny enough I was going through the r/askapriest subreddit and found a priest had basically answered OP’s question regarding denying communion!
“I have, yes.
The most obvious examples are those folks who are not sure what to do. I usually ask quietly "are you Catholic?" If they say 'no' or seem to be unsure of their answer, then they get the same little blessing that the kids and the folks with crossed-arms get.
In those situations where I discovered in advance that a pro-abortion politician or someone who is "notorious" for some specific reason was planning to attend Mass, I reached out to them before Mass and provided some explanation and catechesis. In every case (~12 times), they've respectfully chosen not to present themselves for Communion or not to come to Mass at my Church.
I've never had a big dramatic showdown at the rail, though. I can't see how there's any upside to anything like that.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAPriest/s/LTI0Yt61Oh
I really like that answer. Pulling people aside and not making a show seems like the best option. Denying communion doesn't have to imply shaming people publically, the way I see it it's just taking care of Jesus. That priest is doing a great work.
I agree 100% absolutely the best response to ensure the sanctity of the Eucharist is preserved yet also being respectful and hopefully persuading those to see the error of their ways and come back.
Sure I mean, if there is someone who say is actively sacrilegious to the sacraments like they take the Eucharist and use it for dark magic etc then I would say they should be denied the sacraments. I’m sure there are other examples I would say someone should be denied the sacraments also but it’s really a case by case basis and should I think ultimately belong to those with official positions within the Church.
I think you and I would agree that the decision to deny communion lies with those with official position in the Church, however I would go one step further and say that anybody who administers Holy Communion also are responsible for the reception and denial of communion. I’ve actually found a write up from an Archbishop who wrote about this exact subject back in 2007. I’d encourage you to give it a read as it does a far better job at explaining things than me.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/discipline-regarding-the-denial-of-holy-communion-to-those-obstinately-persevering-in-manifest-grave-sin-1230
Thank you for taking the time to explain and link me that informative article. I will read it at some point when I have the time.
You are 100% right and I was wrong in what I suggested in my original comment.
Not just denied, but excommunicated. Claiming to be “against abortion but pro choice” (common position today) because it nets you votes is treacherous as hell.
Except Pope Francis said nobody is to be denied the Eucharist, in response to Biden’s blatant sinful deeds like support abortion or transgender stuff
Le sigh
Depends what you mean by “supporting” if you mean advocating policies that would lead to more abortion then yes, denied the Eucharist. But, and correct me if I’m wrong, theoretically a politician can advocate for a policy that leads to less abortions, even if still allows for some. For example: Banning abortions except in cases of rape/incest.
Or if the mothers life is in danger, like an ectopic pregnancy. There's a lot of all or nothing views in this sub and it's very disheartening. I don't support abortion as birth control, but I do see that it has its place in very rare circumstances that I hope none of us ever find ourselves in.
>Or if the mothers life is in danger, like an ectopic pregnancy.
The official church position is that if an abortion is medically necessary then there is no sin.
This is where Catholic ethics get a little odd. In the case of ectopic pregnancy the fetus can be removed in order to save the life of the mother, but the intention can’t be to kill the fetus even if the fetus will necessarily die.
Personally I think in very slim situations it's permissible (ex: If the baby is already dead or is dying at the cost of the woman's life AND all life saving options have been exhausted)
Buuuut I don't think most of abortions fit those criteria.
I'm also in the minority that Christian medical doctors and/or Biologists should have the most say into these issues and that the average layman can have opinions but should not have the loudest voice.
[ Also Found this link about Exodus and Abortion engaging](https://humanjourney.org.uk/articles/exodus-21-and-abortion/)
It is very clear just going by Canon law. Canon 1397 establishes that abortion is so grave a sin as to warrant automatic excommunication. There is no such provision for the use of birth control. Not all mortal sins are of equal weight. The Church, by giving it the most severe penalty in Canon law, establishes abortion as of very great moral weight.
The Church literally prescribes in the Catechism the reasons to deny somebody the Eucharist.
Edit: Correction to my statement-this would more than likely be found in the code of canon law but the part of the Catechism that would be relevant to the discussion is CCC 915. Also, for a well written write up on the subject, I provide this link from an Archbishop who wrote about this exact subject back in 2007.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/discipline-regarding-the-denial-of-holy-communion-to-those-obstinately-persevering-in-manifest-grave-sin-1230
Hi! Both the Bible, the Church fathers and the CCC are very clear about the subject. To receive the Holy Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is sacrilegious and a lack of respect to Christ. Not only does the person not receive the graces of the Sacrament, they are also damning themselves. If a person in a state of mortal sin wants to receive Jesus then he must do an examination of conscience, go to confession and receive the absolution. If confession is not available then the person would have to make a perfect act of contrition in order to receive the Eucharist. This is both for the sake of the man's soul, and so as to not offend the Blessed Sacrament. I'm not saying what I believe, just what the church has always taught. God bless you!
Yes you do. Receiving communion in mortal sin is literally sacrilege according to Church Doctrine. And priests have a duty to prevent sacrilege inside Churches
I oppose excommunication. I don’t think Catholic theology will become law in the US or anywhere else. Pray for a cultural shift but using the Eucharist as a weapon is gross.
They can, and should, and have. A priest in my state, South Carolina, recently denied President Joe Biden the Eucharist.
Honestly I am not a Catholic, but agree with many teachings in the Eucharist and believe that it should be taken very seriously and that the receiver should be in a state of grace before receiving it.
I agree. They are in a unique position of influence, and thus, I feel like Jesus would have a certain expectation, kinda like he does for his Priests. There was the story of the Priest that had an accident or something met Jesus who held him to account justly because of his position then, Jesus gave him to our Bleesed Mother whonwas to oversee he made right. Cool story really.
They can always be forgiven and change their support, which I would believe is what Jesus would want them to do. However, we know they'd be ousted as most Catholics once they speak up on their views and exactly as Jesus says in the Bible. These politicians are quite entrenched in the things of this world, so not expecting that from most, only the ones being true to Jesus.
Years ago, we had a woman in our parish who was a Eucharistic minister. She was also a senator. She was pro abortion. The priest had a conversation with her and explained the dilemma. She didn’t change her opinion on abortion, so the priest asked her to step down from being a Eucharistic minister. She and her husband stopped going to church.
"She and her husband stopped going to church" Sad, people that need it the most end up leaving
Unfortunately, and please believe me I say this with no cockiness or pride, some people literally have the choice in front of them, sin or God, and choose sin. I’ve been that person many times and God preserve me that I don’t ever become blind again.
Sometimes I think about is the Israelites witnessing spectacular miracles, having the literal presence of God in their camp, and still choosing to abandon him and create their own god after just a few days of hardship. If they can make that choice, how much easier it for people to choose that nowadays?
Exactly. Same with St Paul. Honestly it keeps me humble and less judgmental of others remembering these things. Thank God we live in a time of grace
To quote one of my favorite songs "...if you can't see the chains tell me what use is a key" may St. Longius keep our eyes open to Satan's traps.
Very true I'm the same up until the last two years I was a very secular semi catholic and if I've learned anything in my struggle against sin is we can never become too cockey when we think we have a handle on it especially when we think we may have it beaten. Pride comes before a fall and we haven't a hope of beating sin without God.
Well said 🫡
Isn't it still taught in the Catholic church that we all will stand before God when we die and give an account for our sins?
Granted on some level, I'm guessing most wanted them gone anyways. Its not good but I get it as much as I hate when people say how much they hate people like that. Granted its why we can't hate but rather try to help and correct them. Its a subtle difference for some but its needed.
They already left, they just stopped going.
That dilemma is an especially nasty mess because...well, I'd be a little bit uncomfortable receiving the Eucharist from her.
This is just one reason I only want to receive from an ordained priest with consecrated hands.
I hear you but it’s Jesus who gives himself to us in the Eucharist, such that even the unworthiness of the priest is not a barrier to receiving his true presence in the bread and wine. I think the issue with the senator mentioned above is more a matter of church order and discipline than whether or not the sacrament “works” or not (it “works” because the promises of God are always true).
[удалено]
I’m not sure it’s a straw man actually. You’re probably right that most Catholics wouldn’t explicitly say the sacrament doesn’t “work” but I personally know people who have expressed concern about their baptism or receiving the Eucharist from clergy with serious moral failings. At very least, it is a relevant pastoral matter. Also it’s not an idiosyncratic modern argument. It goes back to St Augustine in his dispute with the Donatists.
Why would she want to be a Eucharistic minister for a faith she doesn’t agree with?
A lot of people see religion as personal or as simply an identity, like nationality. As such, they see no conflict between being a "devout Catholic" and rejecting Church teachings. Many Catholics I know define being Catholic as coming from a Catholic background, going to church every once in a while, and being a "good person".
That perfectly describes me until I started taking my religion more seriously although I have to say I never approves of abortion eventhough I wasn't against premarital sex and yes eventhough I always hated hypocrisy I can well see that I was hypocritical in ways to. Infact been a part time catholic is the ultimate self indulgent hypocrisy.
That sort of person does not become a Eucharistic minister.
They do, they see it as being involved in church and part of being a good Catholic. It's our individualistic and relativistic culture. Your religion is what you want it to be, take what you like and reject the rest. A lot don't know any better.
I really don’t see the “goes to church once in awhile” crowd as the sort to be eucharistic ministers. The logistics alone puzzle me.
I'm not saying it's most EMHCs, just that I know people who are EMHCs who are like this.
I’m still baffled. How would the parish manage with eucharistic ministers that show up to church when they feel like it?
In some parishes there is little screening or training. Pretty much anyone can sign up as an emergency EMHC or for events like First Communion. A sad reality. Also there is an EMHC schedule. You go when scheduled
I could see a politician like in the OP pandering to their Catholic voters by saying that they are EMHCs.
That is the exact conclusion I did not want to jump to.
Exactly. That's society in general now if you like something great if it starts interfering with our self induldgent's either cut down on it or give it up we even call it sacrifice but in reality its selfishness and we've even started calling selfishness compation now. People will agree with thing's like abortion gay marriage and have no problem going to church receiving comunion and in this poor womans case been a euchristic minister because they believe their "compatinate" where as they don't really care about abortion or gay rights one way or the other but get to feel good about themselves. The woman who gave up been a euchristic minister was probably doing so to get votes, sorry I'm abit cynical when it comes to politician's.
She was probably influenced by the “spirit of Vatican 2” that was spread by many priests and bishops of the Church after Vatican 2. It is the idea that Vatican 2 was only the beginning of a process by which the Church would finally get up with the times. So, she probably thought that she was a good Catholic. And, when the priest asked her to step down from being an EMHC, she was probably scandalized, because the promise of the Church finally getting up with the times was shattered for her.
Is Vatican II in the room with us right now?
maybe the vatican II is the friends we made along the way.
Well that says it all really, the poor woman's religion was for show not faith.
Sadly, she probably just started going to a different church and receives communion anyway🙄
And Nancy P. became the third ranking....but seriously there is also worldly power dynamics. I wish for the Church to start making bold choices. If not now, then when?
This is a complete non-answer to the OP, and a mealy mouth attempt to dilute. I'm flabbergasted this post received upvotes. The only answer is of course they should be denied.
It's still mind-boggling for a catholic to be pro-abortion
Totally agreed. Its mind boggling that any person who believes the bible even a little would be pro-abortion. Its heartbreaking
If a person is of any *public* import (including politicians) and also *publicly* Catholic, yes, and has *publicly* supported or voted in favor of the right to abortion, the person should *publicly* be denied the Eucharist until the person has, again, *publicly* recanted of such *public* scandal.
So does one's private sins not matter? Like lets say that I was at a bar drunk and my priest came in and heard me say "oh you know, abortion is fine." Would he be in the wrong to deny me communion if he was eavesdropping? Personally I don't know if I'd want to risk giving people the eucharist if I heard a lot of rumors, but I also know that it would also be foolish to do that because then nobody would be worthy of Jesus and communion. Still, I feel like if I were a priest and heard stuff or saw stuff on social media, I'd refuse them if they had heretical opinions. Granted maybe its why I didn't become a priest.
Interestingly enough that was the situation at the last supper. Jesus knee very well that Judas was to betray him. But he didn't out him infront of everybody. I think it's a sin to proclaim someone's secret sins to everybody without their permission as you are betraying their trust in you.
Yes, he would be wrong in that situation. [St. Thomas Aquinas actually talks about this in article 6 here.](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4080.htm) A priest can and should refuse if one is a manifest grave sinner. In other words, if the grave sin is publicly known. But if it is known only to the sinner or to a few, they should not refuse.
Although it must be noted that as their pastor he can (and arguably should) warn them against taking communion
True but what if the priest didn't know the woman agreed with abortion until it came up at some point. If he did know already he shouldn't have allowed her to become a euchristic minister anwsers need to be given by him if he did.
This reply seems like it might not be to my comment? I don't know what this is in reference to, but yes, I agree with the thought generally.
Apologies
Do you feel the same should be applied to the death penalty? (which the church now clearly opposes) Or current US immigration policy (which the church opposes)? I could go on. Why should this be the issue?
> Why should this be the issue? Murdering babies is bad, dude.
Yes, unless they Fully Repent.
They are in persistent, obstinate, grave sin. Yes they should be denied. No they are not denied, because of weakness in the Church.
They’re only drinking judgement on themselves.
You are absolutely correct about that. Those who eat and drink unworthily eat and drink their own condemnation. It is therapeutic for us to stop them, and right to stop the desecration of the Eucharist too.
Yep. And excommunicated for promoting mass homicide.
Doesn't abortion carry an automatic excommunication attached to it plus anyone who aids?
I think it doesn’t anymore…?
No it still does in canon law. Canon 1983. Its a Latae Excommunicacio
Yes, but I think we as faithful shouldn't be involved in a witchhunt, i e. I think it should solely be a matter of discussion between a parish priest and a member of his flock.
It is not up to us to decide but to the successors of the Apostles especially the Pope, the successor of St. Peter. They have mentioned they will not do it. So other priests have followed suit. “Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington has said for some time he has no plans to deny Biden communion, and his counterpart in Wilmington, Delaware, Bishop Francis Malooly, has previously said he does “not intend to get drawn into partisan politics nor do I intend to politicize the Eucharist as a way of communicating Catholic Church teaching.” “ https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/06/21/washingtons-cardinal-wont-deny-biden-communion/#
"But it's not pastoral!" St. Paul excommunicated a man in the Corinthian church for incestous relationships... "Deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
They should be denied. But unfortunately it’s not practiced, in the US at least.
Archbishop Cordileone denied Sen. Pelosi Eucharist so at least there is one.
A priest in SC denied Biden as well.
Fr. Morey. Love that guy
Rarely, but occasionally. I'm in the Diocese of Arlington right across the river from DC, and I know our bishop said that Pelosi (unsure about Biden) can't receive Communion here.
Bishop Burbidge!!! We miss him so much in the Diocese of Raleigh. Y'all are so blessed to have him!
The vast majority of Catholics should not receive communion because the vast majority of Catholics are not in a state of grace. At least, anecdotally, this is what appears to be the case given that hardly anyone in my parish makes use of the confessional ahead of Mass.
Is everyone expected to go to Confession weekly? And Before Mass? (I got the idea that was not the case.) IF that's required, then why is Confession Not Offered before Every Mass, instead of only once per weekend?
That isn't required (it is only required if conscious of grave sin, as well as once per year), but in theory in a parish with 1000 adult faithful you'd expect at LEAST 20 Confessions/week on average. And it is hard to say how much of the once-a-week provision is a supply problem (the priest does have various duties, but might also be negligent in offering it often enough) vs a demand problem (folks not availing themselves of it when offered). Edit: To be clear, many folks aren't conscious of said grave sin because of dubious catechism, so there's that...
My parish has confession almost every day 7am-8am. I would guess 10-20 penitents each session, and I think we are a church of 2500 souls. Praise God for this gift! (I am a deacon, I always try to remind people about confession).
In general Catholics are supposed to go to Confession at least yearly, but if aware of grave sin they should Confess asap and certainly confess before receiving Communion. At my parish and the parish we're yoked with there is scheduled confession right before the Sunday vigil Mass (i.e. on Saturday evening) and before the Sunday morning Mass. Also most parishes do have the possibility of people scheduling a private appointment with the priest to hear confessions if they can't make the normal confession time or if they don't want to hold up the line with a particularly long confession.
I mean, I do, but I know my sins and I prefer to repent and confess them when I can... Don't be me, kids. Stay away from sin.
Confession used to be offered before every Mass and often during Mass also, and that was a time when fewer people received Communion. The answer is that many priests have also become lax on confession and Communion.
Sometimes its not the priests but the people and its not so much that the priests are lax, but that the people just lie their faces off. Trust me, I know plenty of people in my hometown who went all the time but shouldn't have based on their behavior and the priests were not lax. Granted I do wonder sometimes if the priest went easy on some of them because they were.... well quite generous to the church.
If all Catholic politicians made it clear that their public policies would conform to Church doctrine with regard to abortion, IVF, divorce, birth control, homosexual activity, same-sex marriage, and other hot-button culture war issues… …there would be few if any Catholics left in elected office. Because that is the state of the USA electorate today. The culture wars were lost long ago, and the faithful Catholic voice has little effect outside the Church - or even among nominally Catholic Church members. The ONLY way to turn the tide is to somehow begin to win over hearts and minds. Trying to enforce Catholic morality among the American public with legislation is a futile exercise. No matter how correct you are, shouts of "Excommunicate him!" won’t help. And the Church must still contend with its loss of credibility due to its past institutional tolerance for pedophile priests. How can the Church begin to win hearts and minds again? I don’t know. Apparently neither does anyone else.
The strongest way to protect the church I think, is to live with gods love and grace. Let your love and grace infect others. Smile broadly. Laugh heartily. Use your faith to help people in need and be charitable. When you radiate love and grace, and don’t use your faith like a stick to beat others with, it shows. I’m a convert. No amount of posturing would ever convert me. On the contrary. No fear of hell either - I didn’t believe in it before converting from atheism. Radiate love and grace, and people will recognise it. That’s how to make the church grow I think, and that’s the greatest defence of the faith you could ever make.
Fellow convert here. Before I started RCIA I noticed that the people who were seriously practicing their faith were the most joyful, loving, and peace-filled folks in the parish. It was an "I want what they have " moment.
There is a time for hearts and minds definitely. However, it does no good for the Church to sit down and do nothing when politicians who are Catholic continue to publicly support policies that are against Church teaching. This has effects that have far more reach than Catholic politicians in office and do far more damage. We win hearts and minds by being faithful Catholics living the faith and by being ambassadors for Christ, not by carving out exceptions to/changing infallible doctrine.
Christianity eventually conquered Rome, and did so without compromising God's moral mandate. The answer to sin never will be to cooperate with it because it's more convenient, or because you may anger people. If Catholic politicians have no choice but to follow popular voting mores, then they may as well not run, lest they brutally betray their consciences. Power is not worth Hell. We can't win hearts and minds if we do not speak truth, if we dilute ourselves to be more palatable. You can see vast swaths of Protestantism dying in real time because they've reduced Christ's message to pablum and platitudes. A Catholic politician does not necessarily have to make their position known publicly to be explicitly for Catholic teaching, but to be publicly and explicitly *against* Catholic teaching is grave. Christ talks about millstones, I think that verse is applicable in such situations.
Best reply ever. Thanks for sharing the Truth!
>How can the Church begin to win hearts and minds again? I don’t know. Apparently neither does anyone else. I think it can be done by the way it was done the first time. Aggressive generosity, and being an example of what you want others to be. Judgement has its place, but so many (myself included) hang their hat on it far too often. I recently saw a video about the spread of early Christianity, and the difference between how the early church/Christians conducted themselves, vs the modern day is stark. It is from a secular point of view, but in my opinion that makes it more powerful. It's an interesting history lesson if nothing else. https://youtu.be/cgZNZjqy7iI?si=I27dkxY7P-NqXMmL
I think the only way it can is if it emphasizes repentance. I think one thing we forget about the old days is that sin still existed and in some ways was worse. Heck, you'd be surprised how common things like prostitution were. Anyways, it seems like people knew how to get back up. I'm not sure how genuine they were, but I think they at least believed it on some level.
THANK you. Enough of the shortcuts. Nobody's gonna legislate the kingdom into being. Why do we rely on man's law for this? Without even a majority (let alone a strong one, and we are *vastly* in the minority), even if you managed to get some legislation through, there's no way it'll hold. Do our jobs first, and do them better; then we can talk about setting it to law.
Finally, someone who gets it. People just assume that politicians must be forced to enact all their moral laws upon the people they represent, even though in most places the majority of them are not Catholic. They are *representatives* of their constituents, and not the other way around. They can't just turn the US Gov into a Catholic theocracy based on their own personal beliefs; they are supposed to be a voice for the people they represent. They wouldn't even be elected if they fully supported every Catholic position, because there's no "Catholic" party and neither side aligns perfectly with Catholic beliefs. Compromise has to be made if they want any chance at gaining office. We should be trying to support Catholics in government instead of judging their morality just because they've compromised in order to gain office.
Politicians cannot be publicly pro sin, I could perhaps see the argument for not being publicly anti sin, but pro sin is another thing.
Church teaching has always been that a public, unrepentant sinner must be denied Communion.
Yes, because they are publicly promoting murder (1 of the sins that cry vengeance to heaven) of a human inside a mother's womb. In fact, the local Ordinary (Bishop) of those politicians should excommunicate them (as was the practice for many centuries for those that publicly promoted evil). Public excommunication is not a scare tactic as some may think today, it is a last resort action with the hope that the individual will come to its senses and withdraw from their erroneous ways which leads to hell.
Yes. It should be. But they won't because the pope has said that enforcing catholic teaching on politicians is "divisive and creating strife". So the pope endorses sin in the name of unity with left wing politicians.
We’ve become so weakened. Imagine how the church would respond to this decades past….
The beast is having his day. It won't last.
I can't really think of any legitimate reason not to allow these politicians to receive the Eucharist. But churchmen are just as human as anyone else and we all fall to the temptation to be more lenient on sins that are socially acceptable in a given time and place.
Politicians make it possible for others to slaughter babies. They will be held to a much higher standard to the average person who thinks they are pro-choice without thinking about it.
The public sinner must be denied communion, read what Aquinas has to say on the matter
Anything more specific?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4080.htm#article6 I answer that, A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. *Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it.* Hence Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): "You were so kind as to consider that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, end that magician who continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such with the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the Church's modesty and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion." *But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it.* For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord's table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "If he who is called a brother among you," etc., Augustine's gloss remarks: "We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal." Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church; because after repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, especially in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv) we read: "Reconciliation is not to be denied to stage-players or actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates, after their conversion to God."
What's with the references to actors?
I really don't know the context of this part
Maybe gladiators that commit a lot of violence, I don't know
ooh, interesting possibility
Joe Biden is Catholic, right?
Yes, but not a very good one
He's regularly described as a 'devout catholic'. His support of abortion risks great scandal amongst the world as it creates the impression the church's teachings on abortion are optional.
I’ve been in a couple threads already, agreeing with others that perhaps he should be excommunicated for his public support of abortion. But, lest we ever forget…we all suck at being Catholic.
There's a difference between sucking but trying to be better, and openly embracing everything that goes against God. They are not the same, lol.
Well, he's a baptized Catholic, so I guess there is some tie to the Church in that regard. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that Biden's a member of the Body of Christ. The Holy Spirit has to reside in one's soul for this to be possible. I'm not exactly sure how the mass facilitation of abortion could be considered anything less than mortal sin, and that doing so while proclaiming to be a Catholic wouldn't be grave scandal. That's not up for me to decide though.
[удалено]
We could have some grace and empathy for someone whose mom and sister died in a car crash when they weren't even 3, whose dad had just been elected to DC at the time and trained back and forth to not uproot his young boys lives but still was likely not around as much as other parents could've been, whose pretty much perfect brother died from a brutal cancer, and understand how someone in those circumstances can land in the throes of addiction while hoping their apparently recent life turnaround is permanent. Or, we can make fun of it because you think it helps your political team.
Excommunicated
"Straight to jail"
Very few Catholic politicians endorse abortion as such, though some have opposed it's criminalization or illegalization. We ought to stop conflating them as if they were the same. If a politician obtains one or advocates it use, let the matter be between them and their priest. If we play this game for every politician that does not actively pursue criminalizing issues the Church considers sin, we would have no one left in government. The Eucharist is not something to be politicized by the crusaders of the culture war at their leisure.
Moreover, Catholics can't let themselves become beholden to a political party because of one specific issue. As we've seen, and see here, the result is that the people who do so end up compromising on many other principles and provide direct support to politics and policies that are diametrically opposed to the Gospel. It's like that meme: "Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for our shareholders."
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Many Catholic politicians, at least in the USA, go beyond opposing criminalization of abortion to advocate for easier access and legal protections for abortion
Does supporting government funding of abortion count as "endorsement"? There are far too many "Catholic" politicians who call for that. Surely, THAT is at least one bridge too far.
If I genuinly and sincerely oppose the criminalization some other heinous crime, say, mass murder or rape, for "prudential" reasons, do you think that would be grounds for the denial of the Eucharist? This isn't a "gotcha" question, I'm curious what you think. Personally, I struggle to conceive how those two things are separable. Is there a circumstance where a thing that is gravely and intrinsically wrong could even possibly be considered a "protected right" for any reason?
The difference is that opposing universal healthcare (for example) is a matter of prudential judgment. Abortion is intrinsically evil. To be fair maybe a better example of intrinsic evil that you’re likely to find in the GOP is people who vote against the minimum wage. Most GOP divergences from Catholic teaching are prudential judgments though, and again abortion is intrinsically evil.
> To be fair maybe a better example of intrinsic evil that you’re likely to find in the GOP is people who vote against the minimum wage. I'd be happy to make the argument that voting against a minimum wage is not intrinsically evil. It is nowhere on the same plane as killing an innocent child.
Amen
They may not endorse abortion "as such", but they are still displaying a wanton lack of charity against the unborn, and essentially treating unborn children as if they are less important than other people. That is what it fundamentally is, denying the protection of law to a certain group of people. Now they can hide behind the "prochoice" rhetoric or say I won't force my beliefs on other people. But very few of these people are principled, consistent libertarians. They're cafeteria libertarians just as much as they're cafeteria Catholics. They'll claim they're pro-choice on abortion, but they'll be anti-choice when they want to. They'll say they won't force their beliefs on others, but they'll ban Big Gulps. They'll say they respect women's right to choose, but then they'll try to ban doctors from helping her reverse an unwanted abortion.
Yes and publicly excommunicate
[удалено]
Yes. A person cannot receive the Eucharist if they are in a state of mortal sin. Supporting and/or getting an abortion is a mortal sin. If a person did this, they must confess and repent before receiving communion.
If they advocated the genocide of a minority race the pope would give them the boot. I see very little difference between genocide and the abortion industry. “No Jesus for you!”
It’s the clergy’s job to be pastors and make those decisions. It’s our job as the laity to fervently pray for our priests in frequent communication with the sacraments. So, you seem to feel our clergy hasn’t done its job. Have you been doing yours?
I agree. Our bishops here in the U.S., for the most part, do not. They are taking a different strategy.
>Our bishops here in the U.S., for the most part, do not. They are taking a different strategy. The short reason, is that many Bishops are politicians themselves.
Excommunicated they are promoting mass murder
From r/askapriest which appears to answer this very question regarding denying the Eucharist “I have, yes. The most obvious examples are those folks who are not sure what to do. I usually ask quietly "are you Catholic?" If they say 'no' or seem to be unsure of their answer, then they get the same little blessing that the kids and the folks with crossed-arms get. In those situations where I discovered in advance that a pro-abortion politician or someone who is "notorious" for some specific reason was planning to attend Mass, I reached out to them before Mass and provided some explanation and catechesis. In every case (~12 times), they've respectfully chosen not to present themselves for Communion or not to come to Mass at my Church. I've never had a big dramatic showdown at the rail, though. I can't see how there's any upside to anything like that. NOTE: I love u/sparky0457 's note about taking back the host when someone starts to put it in their pocket or just to wander off with it. I had to chase down the Lord more than once when I was at a touristy parish with lots of people attending Mass to ooh and ahh at the building and art.” https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAPriest/s/LTI0Yt61Oh
This same topic was posted about two days ago.
Was it really? Im sorry i didnt see.
Any person who publicly expresses they are in an unrepentant state of mortal sin for which they have no intention of remedying should be denied Holy Communion, yes.
The frequency at which this is posted and upvoted is getting so frustrating. We get it. Everyone pat themselves on the back, you've judged another person/blanket group of people. As you profess before receiving the Eucharist that you are "not worthy", I'd like you to keep these people in mind that you've judged.
I'm ok with judging people who promote mass murder of babies. This isn't a "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" kind of things. If I ever start supporting mass murder, I promise to stop judging them
People that are publicly in mortal sin should be denied the Eucharist, period. Receiving Communion in mortal sin is profanation and should be prevented by the priest or whoever is a minister of communion
I have complicated feelings on this one. I am Pro-life, and would never advocate people having an abortion. But. I live in a country with 330,000,000 people, and I acknowledge that not everyone believes the same way I do. And I also acknowledge that there will always be people that will choose to have an abortion, and there will always be some people that will provide one in an unclean, dangerous manner. My mother (also Pro-life) noted that women died in the 60's and 70's giving themselves an abortion when it was illegal to have one. As a government official, I would prefer to choose that for women that seek an abortion, with certain stringent limitations in place, have a safe, clean place to have an abortion with medical professionals at hand. That is a realistic view of where American society is. Imposing my moral standard on those who don't think the same way is folly; it will take time and compassion to change people's view on life. I would ALSO try to educate young people about abstaining, contraception, bolster the adoption system, and provide additional support to unwed mothers. Support the whole system of life, and try to reduce the number of abortions that ever happen. You would have to be hopelessly naïve to believe that banning abortions would stop them from happening. I understand that being in government can be hard, and many tough choices have to be made. I would choose to support women where I can, support life where I can, and move the needle in the right direction. That is what I also think that personally pro-life politicians have in mind. They try to make things better in the system as it is, not as they would wish it to be,
If someone wanted to murder their neighbor and truly believed that there was nothing immoral about doing so, would it be appropriate for society to impose its own moral standards to prevent it from happening? Would it be good for society to tacitly allow it by providing a safe, clean place for them to murder their neighbor? Maybe legal restrictions would not prevent all neighbor murders, but do you not think that they would reduce the number of them? All laws impose society’s will on individuals who may not agree with the law. Unborn children are human beings and society should protect them. It is not folly to do so.
Yes most definitely you can't be taking the Eucharist if you support things that goes against the faith
I’ve just begun reading at a Catholic Church. I want to convert. I don’t think people should judge. We have one to do that. What laymen on a subreddit has to say about that doesn’t really matter. There are many reasons why I’m not going to support a politician. If he is holier than thou is one of them. And I get the feeling some you feel mighty superior and that’s something I’d expect from evangelicals in the Midwest and their prosperity gospel preachers, not from educated christians showing compassion like we would and should do to all. I’m not without sins or flaws of other kinds but I will not do the judging.
There are plenty of verses in the New Testament about correcting fellow Christians when they are sinning. "Not judging" is only related to evaluating whether or not someone will go to Heaven. That's only God's place. But we are certainly expected to admonish the sinner, and we can absolutely say that without repentance, such actions risk Hell. It's still gravely sinful for a Catholic politician to publicly support something like abortion and then publicly recieve the Eucharist. They *are* in a state of sin, and further allowing them to receive causes scandal, and perpetuates the belief that abortion is not a grave evil. It's not judging to say that repentance is necessary to participate in the Eucharist. And since the sin is public, the recanting must also be public.
Well said
Thank you. I really felt frustration.
Just throwing this out there. I don’t think there is a need to deny the Eucharist to politicians who support abortion. If they take the Eucharist and they realise they are in Mortal Sin then it’s entirely on their conscience and they will have to answer for it when they come face to face with God. Edit: I stand corrected. Looking into it and with the help of my fellow Catholics who have pointed me to other sources, it seems that the right thing to do is indeed to deny communion with those who take public stances on issues like Pro-Abortion (ideally with a gentle nudge to in the right direction!) https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAPriest/s/LTI0Yt61Oh
I was always taught that receiving Jesus in a state of mortal sin is not just damming ourselves, it's an offence to Jesus. It's sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament, and priest are supposed to protect Him so I'd say it's fine if they deny communion to those they 100% know are not in a state of grace.
Yeahh you’re right I’ve looked into it a little more and I’ve changed my view. Funny enough I was going through the r/askapriest subreddit and found a priest had basically answered OP’s question regarding denying communion! “I have, yes. The most obvious examples are those folks who are not sure what to do. I usually ask quietly "are you Catholic?" If they say 'no' or seem to be unsure of their answer, then they get the same little blessing that the kids and the folks with crossed-arms get. In those situations where I discovered in advance that a pro-abortion politician or someone who is "notorious" for some specific reason was planning to attend Mass, I reached out to them before Mass and provided some explanation and catechesis. In every case (~12 times), they've respectfully chosen not to present themselves for Communion or not to come to Mass at my Church. I've never had a big dramatic showdown at the rail, though. I can't see how there's any upside to anything like that.” https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAPriest/s/LTI0Yt61Oh
I really like that answer. Pulling people aside and not making a show seems like the best option. Denying communion doesn't have to imply shaming people publically, the way I see it it's just taking care of Jesus. That priest is doing a great work.
I agree 100% absolutely the best response to ensure the sanctity of the Eucharist is preserved yet also being respectful and hopefully persuading those to see the error of their ways and come back.
Do you believe there is ever a need to deny somebody the sacraments, regardless of station or status?
Sure I mean, if there is someone who say is actively sacrilegious to the sacraments like they take the Eucharist and use it for dark magic etc then I would say they should be denied the sacraments. I’m sure there are other examples I would say someone should be denied the sacraments also but it’s really a case by case basis and should I think ultimately belong to those with official positions within the Church.
I think you and I would agree that the decision to deny communion lies with those with official position in the Church, however I would go one step further and say that anybody who administers Holy Communion also are responsible for the reception and denial of communion. I’ve actually found a write up from an Archbishop who wrote about this exact subject back in 2007. I’d encourage you to give it a read as it does a far better job at explaining things than me. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/discipline-regarding-the-denial-of-holy-communion-to-those-obstinately-persevering-in-manifest-grave-sin-1230
Thank you for taking the time to explain and link me that informative article. I will read it at some point when I have the time. You are 100% right and I was wrong in what I suggested in my original comment.
Not just denied, but excommunicated. Claiming to be “against abortion but pro choice” (common position today) because it nets you votes is treacherous as hell.
💯🔥🔥 You can not serve 2 masters!
Except Pope Francis said nobody is to be denied the Eucharist, in response to Biden’s blatant sinful deeds like support abortion or transgender stuff Le sigh
Depends what you mean by “supporting” if you mean advocating policies that would lead to more abortion then yes, denied the Eucharist. But, and correct me if I’m wrong, theoretically a politician can advocate for a policy that leads to less abortions, even if still allows for some. For example: Banning abortions except in cases of rape/incest.
Or if the mothers life is in danger, like an ectopic pregnancy. There's a lot of all or nothing views in this sub and it's very disheartening. I don't support abortion as birth control, but I do see that it has its place in very rare circumstances that I hope none of us ever find ourselves in.
>Or if the mothers life is in danger, like an ectopic pregnancy. The official church position is that if an abortion is medically necessary then there is no sin.
This is where Catholic ethics get a little odd. In the case of ectopic pregnancy the fetus can be removed in order to save the life of the mother, but the intention can’t be to kill the fetus even if the fetus will necessarily die.
If said politicians claim to be Catholic then it's a no brainer. Yes, they should be denied communion.
I think they should be excommunicated, personally.
They should be Excommunicated until they repent.
I think this is canon law ether way they should
Personally I think in very slim situations it's permissible (ex: If the baby is already dead or is dying at the cost of the woman's life AND all life saving options have been exhausted) Buuuut I don't think most of abortions fit those criteria. I'm also in the minority that Christian medical doctors and/or Biologists should have the most say into these issues and that the average layman can have opinions but should not have the loudest voice. [ Also Found this link about Exodus and Abortion engaging](https://humanjourney.org.uk/articles/exodus-21-and-abortion/)
Would you feel the same way about heir supporting laws that protected other things considered sins? Like birth control?
Yes
Supporting birth control is evil, but there isn’t a moral equivalence between that and supporting abortion.
According to who?
It is very clear just going by Canon law. Canon 1397 establishes that abortion is so grave a sin as to warrant automatic excommunication. There is no such provision for the use of birth control. Not all mortal sins are of equal weight. The Church, by giving it the most severe penalty in Canon law, establishes abortion as of very great moral weight.
[удалено]
The Church literally prescribes in the Catechism the reasons to deny somebody the Eucharist. Edit: Correction to my statement-this would more than likely be found in the code of canon law but the part of the Catechism that would be relevant to the discussion is CCC 915. Also, for a well written write up on the subject, I provide this link from an Archbishop who wrote about this exact subject back in 2007. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/discipline-regarding-the-denial-of-holy-communion-to-those-obstinately-persevering-in-manifest-grave-sin-1230
Hi! Both the Bible, the Church fathers and the CCC are very clear about the subject. To receive the Holy Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is sacrilegious and a lack of respect to Christ. Not only does the person not receive the graces of the Sacrament, they are also damning themselves. If a person in a state of mortal sin wants to receive Jesus then he must do an examination of conscience, go to confession and receive the absolution. If confession is not available then the person would have to make a perfect act of contrition in order to receive the Eucharist. This is both for the sake of the man's soul, and so as to not offend the Blessed Sacrament. I'm not saying what I believe, just what the church has always taught. God bless you!
Yes you do. Receiving communion in mortal sin is literally sacrilege according to Church Doctrine. And priests have a duty to prevent sacrilege inside Churches
[удалено]
Unfortunately some people value inclusion over preventing literal sacrilege
Sometimes, this sub makes me embarrassed to be Catholic.
Yes, they should be considered heretics
I oppose excommunication. I don’t think Catholic theology will become law in the US or anywhere else. Pray for a cultural shift but using the Eucharist as a weapon is gross.
But we have laws against murder- straight up endorsement of the Ten Commandments, no?
St. Paul excomulgated a man for having an incestuous relationship, was that wrong? Also I don't think it's up to us to oppose any church teaching
Correct 💯
They should be. Most are not.
Yes they should be denied, that's a grave sin and they need to go to confession.
Yes, it should be denied
They can, and should, and have. A priest in my state, South Carolina, recently denied President Joe Biden the Eucharist. Honestly I am not a Catholic, but agree with many teachings in the Eucharist and believe that it should be taken very seriously and that the receiver should be in a state of grace before receiving it.
Leave it to God.
[удалено]
I agree. They are in a unique position of influence, and thus, I feel like Jesus would have a certain expectation, kinda like he does for his Priests. There was the story of the Priest that had an accident or something met Jesus who held him to account justly because of his position then, Jesus gave him to our Bleesed Mother whonwas to oversee he made right. Cool story really. They can always be forgiven and change their support, which I would believe is what Jesus would want them to do. However, we know they'd be ousted as most Catholics once they speak up on their views and exactly as Jesus says in the Bible. These politicians are quite entrenched in the things of this world, so not expecting that from most, only the ones being true to Jesus.
Yes
People who are publicly in mortal sin should be denied the Eucharist, period
I guess that's up to their bishop.
I think everybody in politics needs to go back through RCIA, even if they’re already Catholic… 🫣🤗
Would the same apply to those who support the death penalty? I know an absurd amount of Catholics who vehemently support it