No communion for Obama supporters

[joliebelle]

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]

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.

[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.

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]

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.

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.

[epchick]

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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by joliebelle

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."

How very pastoral of him.

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

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.

[SWTXBelle]

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.

[LightBulb]

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?

[SWTXBelle]

[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.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by LightBulb

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?

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.

[LightBulb]

Originally Posted by epchick

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.

That's why I asked if it happened before the election as well. If it did, I can see how it could be coercion. If not, I agree that it is irrelevant because people can't vote anymore.

[SWTXBelle]

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?

[LightBulb]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole "sanctity of life" thing from papal encyclicals rather than dogma?

[epchick]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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?

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by epchick

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, if not all, 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.