No communion for Obama supporters

joliebelle · #1 11-13-2008, 08:46 PM

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?

Also, I don't understand people that insist that being pro-choice = pro-abortion.

SWTXBelle · #2 11-13-2008, 08:57 PM

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.

joliebelle · #3 11-13-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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 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.

SWTXBelle · #4 11-13-2008, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joliebelle

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.

laylo · #5 11-13-2008, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

It can't be assumed that supporters believe it is just medical prodecure. Many see the debate as a choice between lesser consequences of abortion and greater consequences of abortion. They may see the act itself as incredibly evil, and therefore -whether we're talking policy or not- wouldn't want to be labeled as supporters of an evil act. In fact, the term "pro-choice" doesn't really suit them either, as they may not support the choice to abort, but rather accept the reality that the choice cannot really be taken away (women are going to have them regardless). I don't suppose people who want to legalize prostitution would want to be called "pro-prostitution".

SWTXBelle · #6 11-13-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laylo

I don't suppose people who want to legalize prostitution would want to be called "pro-prostitution".

They may not want it, but it would be accurate.

eta - ACK! How'd it get to be so late! Good night!

epchick · #7 11-13-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joliebelle

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.

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).

preciousjeni · #8 11-13-2008, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epchick

The difference between pro-life and pro-choice is the latter believes that abortion should stay legalized

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.

SWTXBelle · #9 11-13-2008, 10:04 PM

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)

aephi alum · #10 11-13-2008, 09:03 PM

Oh for crying out loud.

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.

LightBulb · #11 11-13-2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aephi alum

Oh for crying out loud.

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.

As someone who was raised Catholic, you were making a lot of sense... until you got to the part with the priests. I don't know anyone, clergy or lay, Catholic or not, who would approve of that. I think you know that people don't think it's "ok for priests to bugger altar boys" any more than people think it's "ok for teachers to molest their students." You were coming across as reasonable before you made that generalization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aephi alum

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.

An interesting point.

SWTXBelle · #12 11-13-2008, 09:17 PM

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.

aephi alum · #13 11-13-2008, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightBulb

As someone who was raised Catholic, you were making a lot of sense... until you got to the part with the priests. I don't know anyone, clergy or lay, Catholic or not, who would approve of that. I think you know that people don't think it's "ok for priests to bugger altar boys" any more than people think it's "ok for teachers to molest their students." You were coming across as reasonable before you made that generalization.

No reasonable person would think it's ok for priests (or anybody) to have sex with young children. Yet priests have sexually abused altar boys, and some of those priests were quietly moved to other parishes rather than being disciplined or defrocked.

epchick · #14 11-13-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aephi alum

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.

LightBulb · #15 11-13-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epchick

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

I suppose it's not dictating, but it could be considered coercion (threat of mortal sin/damnation could be very persuasive) if it weren't post hoc. Did they say this before the election or just after?