No communion for Obama supporters
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/...bama_catholics

A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."


Can I just say that I love being from SC? :rolleyes:
Also, I don't understand people that insist that being pro-choice = pro-abortion.

Because those who call themselves "pro-choice" are FOR (hence the "pro") legalized abortion.

eta - I don't want to come off as too snarky, but c'mon. I'm all for straight-forward terms - so pro/anti abortion seems to me to be the best way to describe EXACTLY what is being discussed. Pro-choice - what choice? One from column A, one from column B? Beef or chicken? Pepsi or Coke? It's too broad a word to be used to describe a very particular issue, imho.

Oh for crying out loud. :rolleyes:

It's crap like this that drove me away from the Catholic Church 15 years ago. The Church tries to dictate its members' choices - which is fine and dandy if you happen to agree with Church doctrine, and not so pleasant if you don't. No premarital sex, no birth control, no abortion, no homosexuality (yet somehow it's ok for priests to bugger altar boys), and no voting for any candidate who supports abortion rights or anything else the Church doesn't like.

Also, I thought clergy weren't supposed to dictate to their congregants how they should vote? If they do, they risk losing their tax-exempt status.

They can't. And this isn't one of those cases.

How very pastoral of him. :(

I vote pro-choice but I've never voted "for" abortion. I've only ever voted for the option for women to decide if they wanted to have a medically safe abortion or not. I've said before that I'd personally die myself before I had an abortion.

The "no politics from the pulpit" is a very murky area. If the priest did not specify a particular candidate, but simply ennuciated church policy regarding the issue of abortion, it could be argued that it was not a case of violating the IRS policy. But I know there is a debate currently as to whether in fact the current policy violates the seperation of church and state BECAUSE the state is dictating what can and cannot be discussed in church. It's interesting.

[quote=preciousjeni


I vote pro-choice but I've [I]never[/I] voted "for" abortion. I've only ever voted for the option for women to decide if they wanted to have a medically safe abortion or not. I've said before that I'd personally die myself before I had an abortion.[/quote

So you vote PRO legalized abortion, not ANTI legalized abortion. When you vote, it is understood you are voting on a policy, and not making a personal decision.

I don't see how it could be coersion. The election is over, it's not like his parishioners can go back and change their vote.

Here's what I don't get - if you disagree with a fundamental tenet of your church (in this case, abortion and communion in the Roman Catholic church) why wouldn't you find a church with whom you were in more accord?

Well aren't all Christian churches fundamentally the same? I mean if you are "pro-choice" and disagree with the Catholic idea of abortion, then you'll probably disagree with the Protestant (many branches/secs) idea of abortion. Right?

Oh, you could join ECUSA, no problem. Many other mainline Prots don't have an anti-abortion stance. . And then you could always be a Unitarian . . .

eta - ECUSA - Episcopal Church U.S.A.

Like I said, I vote for the OPTION to have a SAFER medical procedure. If the church wants to put a spin on that, they gotta do what they gotta do.

oh no...it didn't seem snarky to me at all. I'm just saying that since I'm pro-choice, to me there are other options than abortion. i.e keeping it, or putting it up for adoption.

BUT - when the term "pro-choice" is tossed around, it's in regards to abortion. No one debates the legality of being able to keep a baby, or put it up for adoption. If abortion is just a medical procedure with no other baggage, why wouldn't a supporter of legalized abortion be okay with being termed "pro-abortion"? By the same token, if we are talking about abortion it is, I believe, more straight-forward to say you are anti-abortion than any other euphemism.

That's not what "pro-choice" means though. The difference between pro-life and pro-choice is the latter believes that abortion should stay legalized (and the woman can chose to have an abortion).

as another option. My church's authority does not extend beyond itself. I'm personally not allowed to even consider an abortion, but my concern is not those outside of the church. God will deal with them. The problem is that, legal or not, women will have abortions. So, do we care about the health of the mother who could ultimately confess what she's done and repent? Or do we let her die in a botched operation? (Not directed at you, in particular, epchick)

My bishop knows who I voted for and completely disagrees with my selection, but would not deny me communion. Now, if I told him I was planning on getting an abortion, we'd have a problem.

Logical fallacy alert - it is not either/or. The only two choices are NOT have an legal abortion, or die in a botched illegal one. Going back to the issue of choice - your hypothetical woman who CHOSES to have an illegal abortion has made a CHOICE.

People are always going to any number of immoral acts which are also illegal - you don't see many arguing that we should simply turn a blind eye to them legally and let God deal with them. The central issue is really quite simple - at what point does a baby become a baby, rather than a piece of tissue/fetus/embryo? I'm really tired of anti-abortionists being painted as somehow desiring to restrict freedom. Anti-abortionists believe that life begins at conception. If that is the case, destroying that innocent life is murder. I believe that most pro-abortion supporters do not believe that a fetus/embryo counts as a human (at least not for a certain period of time) and that therefore abortion is not the same as killing.

Both sides need to respect the idea that the other side has a different fundamental belief regarding the point at which life begins. That is where the debate should center, instead of the idea that anti-abortionists are somehow crazed fundamentalists who want to punish women, or that pro-abortion supporters are murderous immoral relativists. (climbing down off soap box)

Don't anti-abortionists (aka "pro-life" ) believe life begins at conception which is why an abortion, at any stage, would be considered murder; and pro-abortionists (aka "pro-choice") believe life begins at birth, thus why an abortion wouldn't be considered murder?

Whoops - you're right, I misspoke. I'll go correct it.

eta - corrected. Life begins at CONCEPTION. Jeez . . .

This is infuriating me as much as Obama wanting required service for young people.

I may not support Obama's views on this issue or on many others. But voting for Obama (or for anyone) is not a reason to forbid communion. Who knows if the voters did not even consider abortion due to its not being a high priority issue for them as individuals? Who knows if Obama's pros outweighed the cons for them- ok, so I am having a hard time visualizing this given the fact that McCain would be optimal for me, but still.

It's not like the voters automatically engaged in the behavior that the church disapproves of.

And I am the kind of person who thinks everyone should be welcome to receive communion because everyone is welcomed by the Higher Power. That it should be up to you and your conscience- between you and the Supreme Being. That no third party should tell you what to do.

I do not like being told what to do or what to think.

Many protestant denominations do not take official stances on social issues, and NONE are supposed to promote certain political issues, ballot measures or candidates. This sounds like a violation of separation of church and state to me, which means revocation of 501 c 3 status.

Catholics view communion very differently from other Christian denominations. In other denominations, the bread and wine/grape juice are symbolic. But Catholics are supposed to consider them actual body and blood...that Christ "became" the bread and wine. Therefore they do not take their communion lightly. Even though I am presbyterian, I still do not think people should take communion if they do not accept what it stands for.

I think that a theological point could be made that it might depend on WHY you voted for the candidate you did - what are the candidates' postions on capital punishment, for example - but ultimately, it is a case of a Roman Catholic bishop warning Roman Catholic members of a possible consequence of voting for Obama. I don't agree with it, but I'm not a Roman Catholic. It doesn't affect anyone BUT Roman Catholics, and since being a Roman Catholic is a voluntary choice, I don't think that it is worth non-Roman Catholics getting upset about. However, if Roman Catholics think he has overstepped his bounds, I think that is something they should take up with higher-ups.

I'll just add this to the list of reasons I'm not supposed to take Communion and then take it anyway. If I start feeling bad, I'll go to confession.

And no, I couldn't find another church I like more. I like my brand of crazy much better than the other kinds. :)

My pastor when I was going through confirmation made me sit down and have a serious discussion about pre-marital sex, and how it was wrong. Including asking me if I ever thought of having sex.

I looked him dead in the eye and said "seeing as we don't have confession, I don't see how it's any of your business.:)"

Then I promptly told my parents that I thought it was particularly creepy that my pastor felt the need to sit down with me (a 14 year old girl that was more interested in school than boys) and tell me something I ALREADY KNEW.

That guy was such a creeper.

About the topic at hand, the only thing I've ever heard my church as a whole putting forward to the congregation to consider is that homosexuals are, indeed, actual people, and should therefore be treated as such. And that it was mean spirited and sinful to treat them any differently than we would any straight person. Whether that applies to marriage, not sure.

Back to my point that both sides need to step away from the inflamed rhetoric.

How does the Catholic Church feel about reduction if one is having multiples (for instance, if you're pregnant with sextuplets and can only feasibly carry a couple of the babies).

Although it's really rare for a woman to be pregnant with that kind of multiples without modern medicine making it so - does the Catholic Church have a stance against fertility treatments?

Selective reduction is a no.
I'm pretty sure fertility treatments are, too.
RCs, correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes. This can play out sort of fun when somebody gets IVF or whatever and gets knocked up with a large amount of multiples.

Here's another question (since obviously I'm not up on Roman Catholic policy):

What if the choice is the baby or the mother (in a situation where you're already in childbirth)?

Is the father going to H-E-double hockey sticks if he chooses the mother? Or is that just a situation where the choice is so difficult anyway that it's a non-issue?

An example . . .
 

http://www.saintgianna.org/

eta - I don't know the overall policy, but I did know of St. Gianna.

So then the choice is to save the baby? Interesting.

I wouldn't go that far based on St. Gianna - but she is an example of a mother who would not put her own self-interest first.

But isn't the debate in a way already centered there? For one to assert that abortion is wrong or that it's murder wouldn't one have to have a working definition of when life begins? Some say that life begins at gestation, others say it begins when vital organs begin to develop, and others (like myself) say that life begins when the fetus is able to survive on its own outside of the womb.

I think that both sides already understand that each has a different belief regarding the beginning of life I think the question is moreso which side has the "correct" definition.

I hope I never have to make the choice, but it's gotta be a hard one. Give one baby life but leave three with no mother.

But I like the testimonials. There is something about faith in especially difficult times.