A priest at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in downtown Greenville has told parishioners that those who voted for Barack Obama placed themselves under divine judgment because of his stance on abortion and should not receive Holy Communion until they’ve done penance.
The Rev. Jay Scott Newman told The Greenville News on Wednesday that church teaching doesn’t allow him to refuse Holy Communion to anyone based on political choices, but that he’ll continue to deliver the church’s strong teaching on the “intrinsic and grave evil of abortion” as a hidden form of murder.
Both Democratic president-elect Obama and Joe Biden, the vice president-elect, support legal abortions. Obama has called it a “divisive issue” with a “moral dimension,” and has pledged to make women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a “priority” as president. He opposes a constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court decision.
I seem to recall reading that, when now-Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) heard about US priests and bishops saying they would refuse communion for John Kerry, he laughed because he thought it was a ridiculous idea. Remember, at the time, Ratzinger was the ‘bulldog’ in charge of enforcing adherence to Church doctrine.
I am much more impressed by reports of the response of Biden’s new bishop: he said he wouldn’t deny anyone communion over abortion because he doesn’t want to politicize the Eucharist. Instead, he spoke with Biden by phone, and they plan to meet in person when they can — and the bishop will simply do his best to persuade Biden to change his position.
I have already written to Father Newman (in South Carolina) congratulating him for his actions. Also, a priest outside of Sacramento CA threw a woman with Obama stuff on her vehicle out of mass the other day.
FInally, deeds are following words.
[b]Penance for Obama voters over abortion[/b]
[blockquote]22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams. ~ 1 Samuel 15:22[/blockquote]
[blockquote]11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the LORD.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your evil assemblies.
14 Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts
my soul hates.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even if you offer many prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood;
16 wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong,
17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed.
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow. ~ Isaiah 1:11-17[/blockquote]
Until those who voted for Barack Obama genuinely repent, they have placed themselves under divine judgment because of his stance on abortion.
Re # 1
fishsticks
That’s a very Protestant approach to Holy Communion. The ancient churches (because of our faith in the real presence) take Communion extremely seriously. The traditional discipline of the apostolic churches (Rome, Orthodoxy, and the Oriental Orthodox) has always been to adhere to the admonition of St. Paul against communing unworthily lest the communicant eat and drink condemnation unto themselves.
In the Roman Church canon law expressly prohibits notorious sinners from being admitted to communion. Although this rule is widely ignored today it remains on the books and those bishops who ignore it I believe are guilty of causing scandal. This rule is also pretty strictly observed in the Orthodox Church as well. Some of the more conservative Orthodox jurisdictions (the Russians and Serbians come to mind) prohibit reception of communion by anyone who has not been to confession within the last 24hrs. The danger is twofold. First there is the danger to the soul of the unworthy communicant. Then there is the danger of scandalizing the faithful.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
I don’t mind so much Fr. Newman’s suggestion that people should decide for themselves not to receive communion. (Actually, I think it’s a perfectly acceptable and defensible approach.) But I don’t think there’s any excuse for throwing someone out of mass.
And though I dislike being the bearer of unwelcome news, nuance will continue to exist regardless of whether we are sick and tired of it. It is — and will remain — a fact of life, even if we choose to ignore it.
IIRC isn’t St. Mary’s Greenville and Anglican Use parish?
Regarding # 1: Your statements about then Cardinal Ratzinger’s views are incorrect. Please see his memorandum entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion” found at the following site.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
[b]#4, Ad Orientem:[/b] Notorious sinners. And you can always identify them on sight, without any risk of error? How, pray tell? Because unless that is the case, presuming to believe that you are able to see into the hearts and souls of others is pride, even hubris. And what about someone who has been a notorious sinner, but has repented – is he always and eternally to be turned away from the Altar, no matter what? Doesn’t such a position assume that God would never waste His time on a sinner – that He would never go looking for one lost sheep (despite the parable to the contrary) – and that, if He did, His efforts could never succeed? Because, again, that strikes me as the sin of pride.
If that is a Protestant approach to the Eucharist, well, that’s ok by me. I think I can live with that.
[b]#7, Keith:[/b] Thank you for the link. I found the last two sentences particularly interesting: [blockquote]A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.[/blockquote]
So unless, for instance, the Sacramento priest [b]knew[/b] (1) that the woman he threw out of mass had voted for Obama (which he could only assume, albeit with a basis for doing so), and (2) that she did so “precisely because of [Obama’s] permissive stand on abortion,†he would appear to have been in the wrong, at least as far as Pope Benedict is concerned.
By the way, I would point out that Cardinal Ratzinger took a number of quite conservative, and hard-line, positions when he was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – which caused some concern among less-conservative Catholics when he became Pope Benedict. Since then, however, he has been far more moderate than expected. So I don’t necessarily discount the story I read (although I also don’t take it as Gospel truth).
I have a question – really, it’s an honest question; I’m not trying to needle anyone. I used to know a professor whose wife became pregnant and gave birth to twins, but one of the babies died very quickly, before it could be baptized. (This would have been in the late ‘60’s or early ‘70’s.) Their parish priest refused to conduct a funeral or permit the baby to be buried in the parish cemetery because the baby was unbaptized and could therefore never get to heaven. (Which has always struck me as a marvelous example of how [i]not[/i] to react pastorally to such a situation. But I digress…) So my question is this: if abortion causes the death of an innocent child, but an unbaptized baby who lived less than one day could never get to heaven, was the rationale somehow that original sin touched only those who were born alive? Until fairly recently, stillborn babies were said to be consigned to Limbo – and they weren’t born alive, either. I’m just confused on this, and any explanation would be welcome.
Fishsticks: My purpose to linking the above Ratzinger response was more to address the views regarding John Kerry and Joe Biden as Catholic politicians per this section:
“5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”
Re #8
fishsticks ,
[blockquote] Notorious sinners. And you can always identify them on sight, without any risk of error? How, pray tell?[/blockquote]
Not always, but sometimes you can. Believe it or not there are some situations that are not shaded in gray.
[blockquote] Because unless that is the case, presuming to believe that you are able to see into the hearts and souls of others is pride, even hubris. [/blockquote]
When someone has been both privately and publicly admonished by the church that their actions are gravely sinful and evil and they publicly and firmly refuse to repent I do not think it is hubris to make a reasoned judgment that they have separated themselves from the communion of the faithful.
[blockquote] And what about someone who has been a notorious sinner, but has repented – is he always and eternally to be turned away from the Altar, no matter what? [/blockquote]
Of course not. Do you enjoy making straw man arguments that have no bearing on the case at hand? Interdict is not a punishment. It is a corrective sanction intended to bring habitual and unrepentant sinners back into the church from which they have separated themselves. The Vice-President elect has used, and vows to continue to use, the powers of his office to promote and advance a right for mothers to kill their children. He persists in this despite very public and crystal clear warnings from his church that he is engaging in a morally evil act. He has gone on to publicly misrepresented the teachings of his church on national television while rejecting all correction. If he repents of this I would be the first (were I Roman Catholic) to welcome him back to the altar rail.
[blockquote] Doesn’t such a position assume that God would never waste His time on a sinner – that He would never go looking for one lost sheep (despite the parable to the contrary) – and that, if He did, His efforts could never succeed? Because, again, that strikes me as the sin of pride. [/blockquote]
My above responds to this I think. It strikes me that you embrace the Protestant and modernist concept of open communion. Following your train of thought logically no one should be excluded from the Body & Blood. Alas this is not the teaching of Scripture, the Fathers, or the apostolic Church. It is inconsistent with the ancient canons.
It seems to me that the real hubris lies with those who wish to dismiss 2000 years of consistent Christian teaching and discipline because they are right and the Holy Apostles, saints, martyrs and Fathers of the Church were all wrong.
Hmmm where have I seen that lately?
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
P. S. Why do I have the distinct suspicion that you do not believe abortion is a moral evil? Somehow, I can not shake the feeling that if the Vice President elect supported a law permitting mothers to place their children against a wall and shoot them, despite repeated warnings, that we would be having this debate.
With respect to my #10
I recant my Post Script. Fishstick’s post does not contain clear evidence supporting my suspicion and it was wrong of me to make a public accusation absent evidence. I apologize and ask forgiveness.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Short on time — will try to post briefly, then must run.
[b]#10 & #11, Ad Orientem:[/b] First and foremost, I appreciate your #11 — as it happens, your PS in #10 was incorrect.
But whoa, there, re: open communion — I most assuredly do [i][b]NOT[/i][/b] “embrace the Protestant and modernist concept of open communion.” I never have, and have no intention of doing so in the future. As a matter of fact, it is a concept that bothers me enormously.
What I [i]do[/i] embrace is the firm belief that we cannot and do not know as much about others as we like to think, and that much of what we think we know is in fact assumption (albeit frequently assumption with at least some basis in reality). We are particularly bad at understanding others’ motivations — partly because not all motivations are conscious ones, partly because we tend to project our own motivations onto others (which relates back to the bit about assumptions).
What concerns me is not the idea of God judging us (although I wouldn’t say I’m eager to take my turn at the front of that line); God can see into our hearts and minds, know whether or not we actually did X, understand why we do what we do, etc., so I’m not worried about (for lack of a better term) false convictions when God is the judge. But when [i]we[/i] start deciding that So-and-so is guilty of X, and therefore Y punishment will be imposed, it raises my antennae.
Now, this is not to say that human beings shouldn’t ever make judgments, or that we should get rid of the entire criminal court system, or anything like that. Rather, I simply think we need to be far, far more careful and cautious about it than we usually are; in my opinion, people are generally too cavalier about this sort of thing.
Human beings tend to ignore (and more readily forgive) their own failings and flaws, while highlighting (and refusing to forgive) the flaws and failings of others. (See the parable re: the speck in your eye vs. the beam in my own…) When we set about judging others, we tend to believe that we see the situation accurately, even when we don’t. And [i]that[/i] is what concerns me, and what seems to me to be pride.
Re # 12
fishsticks,
I will be brief since I don’t think a prolonged reply is needed. Your # 12 seems to dwell on the hypothetical. All of my posts are dealing with the very real situation involving the Vice-President elect of the United States. I can not see how any reasonable person can conlude that any of what you wrote applies to this case.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
[b]#13, Ad Orientem:[/b] My #12 was intended primarily to clarify my perspective; I didn’t say it should be directly and immediately applied to VP-elect Biden. I was trying to explain where my concerns lie, and what raises them — particularly re: barring people from receiving communion. It seemed sensible to offer some explanation, given your apparent misunderstanding of my positions, opinions, and motivations. For me, at least, explanations of that sort usually involve some ‘dwelling upon hypotheticals.’ I apologize if it was irksome to you.