Pro-Abort Senator Denied Communion

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
Hopefully Sen. Durbin will see the error of his ways...


Illinois bishop upholds priest’s decision to deny Communion to pro-abort Sen. Dick Durbin


by Patrick B. Craine
Thu Apr 03 2:10 PM EST


SPRINGFIELD, IL, April 3, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, known for his outspoken defense of the right to life and the natural family, has signaled his support for denying Communion to Catholic politicians who publicly endorse activities gravely contrary to the moral law.


The bishop wrote recently to a pro-life activist to affirm that he is upholding a diocesan priest’s decision to deny Communion to U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL, who has a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood.

Paprocki’s e-mail was reported Thursday by Catholic commentator Matt Abbott.


“Senator Durbin was informed several years ago by his pastor at Blessed Sacrament Parish here in Springfield that he was not permitted to receive Holy Communion per canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law,” Paprocki wrote. “My predecessor upheld that decision and it remains in effect. It is my understanding that the senator is complying with that decision here in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois.”


Canon 915 states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
In placing the onus on ministers of Holy Communion, canon 915 is distinct from canon 916, which places the onus on the communicant to not approach for Communion if they are “conscious of grave sin.”
Canon 915 has been at the center of the dispute in recent years over how Church leaders should deal with the plethora of Catholic politicians who vote for pro-abortion and pro-homosexual legislation.


Some prelates argue that denying politicians Communion turns the Eucharist into a political “weapon.” Defenders of the canon, however, argue that it is an expression of charity by protecting the individual from taking part in sacrilege and protecting the faithful from scandal.


The clear position from the Vatican has been in favour of enforcing the canon. In 2004, as America’s bishops were debating whether to deny Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then-head of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, wrote a letter to the bishops exhorting them to do just that.
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:
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.
When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
The cardinal’s letter was not considered during the U.S. bishops’ debate, however, because Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, to whom it had been sent, withheld the text. The letter was eventually leaked to Vatican reporter Sandro Magister, who published it in full. Cardinal Ratzinger’s office then confirmed its authenticity.
U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke has been the most prominent defender of canon 915. In an interview published exclusively in English last month by LifeSiteNews, Burke insisted denying Communion when required is not about punishment but charity.


“The priest’s refusal to give Holy Communion is a prime act of pastoral charity, helping the person in question to avoid sacrilege and safeguarding the other faithful from scandal,” he explained.
“The exclusion of those who persist in manifest and grave sin, after having been duly admonished, from receiving Holy Communion is not a question of a punishment but of a discipline which respects the objective state of a person in the Church,” he added.


As prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, Burke is considered the Church’s highest-ranking canonist.
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
Excellent article, Galadriel. :yep:

And the motion stands. God, Himself has made it plain regarding the taking of Holy Communion. The Church is simply obeying and honoring the sacredness of the Lord.

But politician's want to desecrate it. They better stop playing games with God. God's Word is clear:

I call before Heaven and Earth, choose Life or death, Blessing or cursing... Choose Life!

It is completely obvious what these politicians have chosen and it is not Life nor Holiness. :nono:
 

Belle Du Jour

Well-Known Member
The senator may not realize it, but they are preventing him from heaping up more damnation upon himself. Sacrilege is a mortal sin.
 

sugarbaybie

Well-Known Member
So he's not allowed to receive communion because he has not repented for the sins of upholding laws allowing abortion?
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
So he's not allowed to receive communion because he has not repented for the sins of upholding laws allowing abortion?

Yes... :yep:

The word 'allowed' isn't the correct term.

God warns us not to take communion if our hearts are not right. This senator knows this, yet he chose to support what God does not, which is the willful ending of life of an unborn child. Knowing this, he has already alienated himself from partaking in the sacredness of Holy Communion.

To be honest, there are times when I will not take communion, because I know that my heart is not right about something. When my heart repents, I'll be able to take communion during the next service that it is offered.
 

JaneBond007

New Member
I don't know if they are questioning any subjective guilt he might have but are making a decision upon an objective state of reality that is independent of our perception? He may not "know" the consequences of what he is doing so they will remove communion to protect him?

Which brings me to ask:

Would a military person of higher authority, say, a general, be withheld communion in times of war since he may command extreme aggression against a region or target that they know will result in death?
 

Shimmie

"God is the Only Truth -- Period"
Staff member
I don't know if they are questioning any subjective guilt he might have but are making a decision upon an objective state of reality that is independent of our perception? He may not "know" the consequences of what he is doing so they will remove communion to protect him?

Which brings me to ask:

Would a military person of higher authority, say, a general, be withheld communion in times of war since he may command extreme aggression against a region or target that they know will result in death?

Noooooooo, because it's not the same, Love One.

Joshua, Moses, King David were all (also) in Military Authority leading in wars where death was / is imminent. So a military person(s) who are forced to participate in wars, are not in the same category as this politician and others like him.

Politicians are out of control willfully and knowingly giving satan the key to the downfall of the laws of this land; and as a Catholic, this politician knows the laws of the Church, especially when it comes to abortion, yet he chooses to support it.
 

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
So he's not allowed to receive communion because he has not repented for the sins of upholding laws allowing abortion?

sugarbaybie yes.

Even I cannot go to communion if I have not repented of my mortal sins. Well, physically I could, but spiritually I would be committing sacrilege and heaping God's condemnation on my head.

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."

1 Corinthians 11:27-32
 

Galadriel

Well-Known Member
I don't know if they are questioning any subjective guilt he might have but are making a decision upon an objective state of reality that is independent of our perception? He may not "know" the consequences of what he is doing so they will remove communion to protect him?

Which brings me to ask:

Would a military person of higher authority, say, a general, be withheld communion in times of war since he may command extreme aggression against a region or target that they know will result in death?

JaneBond007 I believe St. Thomas Aquinas laid out the basis of Just War Theory in the Summa Theologica:

In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary.

First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."




Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

------
My note: Aquinas would also argue that you should seek as little collateral damage as possible.
 

JaneBond007

New Member
Me thinks our country is in for a rude awakening, joining many others before it on our centuries of horrid history. Maybe we all in the makings of a grand bouleversement of the spiritual kind. I'm very thankful for Pope Francis.
 
Top