I have a question about Giuliani and Holy Communion .

[chieftain]

Archbishop Burke of St. Louis said today he would deny Communion to Rudy because of his past support of pro choice positions. Is it still Church policy to deny Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics? If so it would be yet another gratuitous intervention into the political process by Catholic prelates who continue to squander the moral authority of the Church.

[JNelson6563]

1. To the best of my knowledge

Unless there is an annulment and any current marriage blessed by thte church than indeed that person is not suppose to get communion.

Julie

[Beer Snob-50]

2. What is suprising is that they are doing this to a republican.

What blows my mind is that pro choice gets you denial of communion but any other issue is not even mentioned. LIke supporting unnecessary wars, gutting social issues, ect. Jesus always said to take care of the poor, that it was like taking care of him.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Excellent points. It's more difficult to make

judgements on those sins, though, because a politician may have voted for war some times and against it other times, and the Church doesn't forbid war. It would be hard to judge someone's record on poverty, too, because bills are always loaded with amendments and you might have to, say, vote to defund the war on a bill that had an amendment to cut Medicaid.

I'm all for the bishops saying more about war and poverty, though. A lot of them stirred themselves to say "No Traditional Latin Masses in my diocese" but are absent on other issues.

Priests ought to preach more about war and poverty, too.

[DemBones DemBones]

3. Yes, if you divorce and remarry without an

annulment, you automatically excommunicate yourself. You can get an annulment after remarrying, though, assuming there are grounds for declaring it was not a sacramental marriage.

I don't know whether Giuliani has had both his previous marriages annulled. If not, it would be proper to deny him Communion for that reason.

If you have an abortion, perform an abortion, work in an abortion clinic, work for a pro-abortion group, or, as a politician, vote for legislation that finances abortions, or publicly support abortion, you have automatically excommunicated yourself, so if that's why Archbishop Burke says he would deny Giuliani Communion, he's right to do so for that reason as well.

He's not squandering the moral authority of the Church since the Church teaches that abortion is murder. He's enforcing the moral authority of the Church, as bishops should.

But really he's just making a statement, and a gratuitous one. Any Catholic politician who supports "abortion rights" surely knows not to go to Burke for Communion as he has made such statements in the past.

[chieftain]

5. Given the short time between Rudy's most recent divorce and

remarriage, I seriously doubt that he could have obtained an annulment. By overlooking an obvious and long-standing impediment to receiving Communion, Burke unnecessarily inserted himself into politics. I understand the Church's teaching on abortion and the need to educate the faithful on that tenet of the faith, but it seems to me to be grandstanding to issue a statement that the Host would be denied to someone who was already barred from the Sacrament on the off chance that Giuliani is in attendance at the Archbishop's Mass in St. Louis. That type of cheap political posturing further erodes the Church's moral authority which has been battered by certain of the hierarchy's perfidious behavior in the molestation scandals.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. I don't know about his status as

regards his third marriage.


To be charitable, we could assume that Burke made a public statement to draw the attention of Catholics to the abortion issue and Church teaching about abortion, although it looks like grandstanding.

I'm all for bishops speaking out on moral issues so that's the good side. The bad side is that either they don't speak out on a lot of other issues or that the media ignore them when they do. "Bishop Urges Greater Assistance for the Poor" is not a headline that gets featured, but bishops do issue statements like that all the time.

Headlines that can be used to present the Church as "repressive" and "behind the times" get featured. If Burke had made a statement that wealthy Catholics should give more money to the poor, perhaps specifically mentioning the Catholic candidates for president, it might get some media attention, it might not. Some might call it grandstanding, or attacking the rich. You never know.

St. John Chrysostom said many centuries ago that the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops and cardinals so there's always been corruption in the hierarchy.

We should pray for our priests and bishops and all the hierarchy, praying that they do the right thing in all situations, but realizing that's impossible because they're human. It is disappointing when they fail to do what they should but we in the laity have our failures, too. That's not to say they shouldn't be held to a higher standard. They did, after all, take the vows of Holy Orders and should obey them.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

7. So pro-choicers can't be Catholic?

"If you have an abortion, perform an abortion, work in an abortion clinic, work for a pro-abortion group, or, as a politician, vote for legislation that finances abortions, or publicly support abortion, you have automatically excommunicated yourself, so if that's why Archbishop Burke says he would deny Giuliani Communion, he's right to do so for that reason as well."

[theredpen]

9. It's more complicated than that

The Church's position on abortion is part of a Consistent Life Ethic. This teaching includes that life begins at conception (Scripturally, life begins when one draws breath, or can draw breath, but that's not the Church's position). Many Catholics who completely support the Church on this teaching also believe that abortion is a medical procedure that should remain safe and legal so that it may be available in the small number of cases where it is justified morally. This would make them nominally "pro-choice" and would mean that they are effectively supporting abortion on demand. It's a moral gray area, to put it lightly.

Where Burke is failing morally is that he is falling into the trap that has been laid by American evangelicals. This is the trap of forgetting that the right to life does not end at birth. If Bishop Burke really cared about life — and not just politics — he would refuse communion to politicians who support the unjust war in Iraq and politicians who support capital punishment. Many people point out that capital punishment is not comparable to abortion because the victim in the latter case is completely innocent and the victim in the former case is presumed guilty. Jesus did not make any such distinctions, however; he urged us to follow the commandment to refrain from the unnecessary taking human life and he made it clear that the test of our righteousness was whether we could apply our morals to the "least among us," and not only to those who were obviously deserving.

The Church has painted itself into a corner with regard to reproductive issues. A more progressive stance is justifiable within Christian theology, but in order for the positions to change in this particular subject area, established positions dating back to the first century would need to be revised and that isn't going to happen quickly, nor should it.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. Biologically, life begins at conception.

Trust me, I'm a biologist.

It was my training in biology that dragged me, kicking and screaming, into the pro-life camp. (I became Catholic later and not because of the Church's stand on abortion, though I agree with it. I became Catholic for spiritual reasons.)

There is no denying, from a purely biological standpoint, that life begins at conception.

It's a lie to say "scientists don't know when life begins." We do know. For years I ignored the obvious in order to be a properly pro-life feminist, but one day as I was teaching a class the traits biologists use to determine whether something is living or non-living, something I'd taught dozens of times, I realized that I knew full well that a zygote has all the traits of living things and that I'd been in denial about it.

Back then, it was still being argued that early embryos aren't "really alive." But I suddenly realized I knew they were. Nonliving things don't exhibit the traits of living things, embryos exhibit those traits from the beginning.

Then I thought, briefly, that maybe the argument "Embryos are not really human" could save me from having to be pro-life. But I knew that the zygote has a human genotype, a complete and unique to each individual (except identical twins or multiples, who have identical genotypes) that already mapped out what the person would look like, possible diseases s/he could have, some behavioral traits.

We can debate when the baby receives a soul or has consciousness but we can't measure those at this point in time. Some people argue that babies under 2 years don't have consciousness, which suggests they haven't been around many toddlers or young babies! The "ethicist" Peter Singer, who teaches at Harvard, has said it is ethical to kill children under the age of two years, which is clearly murder though if it flies it'll probably be termed postnatal abortion. :sarcasm:

We do know that a new human life is created once the sperm penetrates the ovum.

What about the mother's life? If a pregnant woman needs medical treatment, she should receive it, even if a side effect is to endanger or end the baby's life. That is Catholic teaching.

Neither mother nor baby should be deliberately killed, and ideally both lives are saved. In reality, there are some cases in which the necessary medical treatment is certain to kill the baby, such as removal of a cancerous uterus.

Ectopic pregnancies must be removed in almost all cases. (Rarely, an embryo will implant in a woman's abdominal cavity, develop normally to term and be delivered by C-section.) But most embryos that implant outside the uterus are doomed and can cause the mother's death if not removed. Often, they are dead before the condition is recognized but sometimes they're alive.

Catholic teaching is that they should be removed, even if they're alive, because the mother's life is endangered.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

15. I've talked with many biologists and am myself a biology major

And the "life" question is not as easy as you make it seem. Technically a sperm is a living thing, as is an egg as is every cell in your body. The characteristics of life apply to many things. What people are trying to decide is if the embryo is a HUMAN and entitled to the rights of a HUMAN.
Please do not speak for all biologists when every biologist I've ever talked to has said they cannot answer this question for all biologists, only themselves.

[DemBones DemBones]

17. A sperm is a living CELL, an ovum is a living CELL.

Once a sperm fertilizes an ovum, a new living ORGANISM with a complete human genotype is created. That's biology. From conception, the new organism requires energy, grows, develops, and has the genes to develop the sexual organs to be able to sexually reproduce at maturity. A baby girl has all the ova she will ever have when she is born (and before she is born.)

Somatic CELLS require energy and grow but don't develop into other types of cells as embryonic cells do. Somatic cells also don't sexually reproduce, no matter how long they live. From conception, the potential for sexual reproduction is there.

The embryo has the complete human genotype so of course it's human. The zygote has the complete human genotype, so we have a new human from conception.

In the past, and even today among some groups, many full-grown adult humans are not considered fully human. Blacks were once in this category. Women were in this category even longer if we consider when blacks got the right to vote compared to when women got the right to vote.

There are many other examples of humans denying that other humans are actually human. But I don't see any way to deny that having human chromosomes means you're human.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

20. Sperm and ova are gametes, not somatic cells.

Other than the gametes, every single cell contains within it the complete genome of an individual. Would you argue that every cell is then human? Each has the complete human genotype.

This is a strawman:

"In the past, and even today among some groups, many full-grown adult humans are not considered fully human. Blacks were once in this category. Women were in this category even longer if we consider when blacks got the right to vote compared to when women got the right to vote."

Because gross injustices were made in the past does not mean that in the present, every single thing that some claim to be human is in fact human.

[DemBones DemBones]

22. Where did I say they weren't gametes?

You came here to ask questions about Catholic teaching. They have been answered.

Now you are arguing against Catholic teaching, which violates group rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

37. Self-Delete

Forget it, it's not worth it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. This is also incorrect:

"But I knew that the zygote has a human genotype, a complete and unique to each individual (except identical twins or multiples, who have identical genotypes) that already mapped out what the person would look like, possible diseases s/he could have, some behavioral traits."


"When an embryo becomes a person with "human rights" is probably the most controversial debate of our time. It is an issue that has perplexed the wisest philosophers and the average citizen. Americans hold widely different views on this question and they are based on deeply held religious and ethical beliefs. In our pluralistic society, where it is difficult to obtain consensus on almost any issue, public policy must represent an effort to arrive at a reasonable accommodation to these diverse interests. Even constitutional reasoning acknowledges the importance of diverse but deeply held views. We cannot focus on a single criterion of personhood. When human rights and protectability commence it is not an all-or-nothing matter. At this early stage of development (before 14 days) the embryo does not have human form or genetic uniqueness. It is a growing collection of cells which can divide into two and naturally produce identical twins. It is unable to survive outside of the womb, does not have any organ structures including even a primitive brain and it has no degree cognitive development. After conception following intercourse some 60 percent of human embryos are discarded by nature at this stage of development, before the mother ever realizes that she was pregnant. It would be difficult for society to ascribe "rights" to something that has such a high natural mortality."

---http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march97/embryo3.html

[DemBones DemBones]

18. Just because a zygote can divide and produce

identical twins does not mean it is not genetically complete and unique. If it does divide and produce identical twins they will have the same complete and unique genotype. It will simply be unique to two instead of one.

We don't have to ascribe rights to the 60% (some geneticists say it's greater than 60%) of early embryos that spontaneously abort. That is nature discarding defective embryos that were unable to live but 14 days or less. Those are natural deaths.

Embryos that are not spontaneously aborted deserve human rights because they are human.

It is now legal to abort a baby throughout pregnancy but once born, killing the baby becomes infanticide.

Why does the baby have human rights immediately after birth but not the day before? It's illogical. All organisms ultimately die. Any organism is either living or dead. There's no middle ground of being neither alive nor dead, somewhere between life and death. Between conception and birth, the baby is alive. After birth, the baby continues to be alive.

Abortion kills a living organism. Strangely, some people don't realize that. I've seen posts at DU saying "My baby died before he was born so I had to have an abortion." The removal of a dead baby is not an abortion. The removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion. The removal of a living baby from a woman' uterus in a manner that causes its death is an abortion.

"Pro-choice" activists don't want women to have the choice to see information about embryonic and fetal development, to be told how large and well-developed the baby they are carrying is, much less to see a sonogram of their baby. That information is essential for a woman to make a truly informed choice about abortion. I know women who've had abortions, believing what they were told, that the pregnancy was "just some cells." Years later they saw diagrams and photos of embryos and fetuses at different ages, realized they'd been lied to, felt terrible guilt over killing what clearly was a baby, even if a very tiny one.

When you have surgery other than abortion, you get a real explanation of what's being done. Why not a real explanation of what abortion does, of exactly what is being removed?

In every state where lawmakers have proposed or passed bills mandating a woman's right to know -- to know the truth about what her baby looks like at that point in pregnancy, that it has a heartbeat and brainwaves, etc. -- "pro-choice" activists who talk about women's "reproductive rights" have fought against allowing women the right, the choice to see what is happening inside their own uteri, even to see diagrams. They say they are not pro-abortion so why don't they allow women to have more information before choosing to end their babies' lives? It doesn't seem that they want the abortion rate to decrease or for any woman who has considered abortion to choose to have her baby.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. Find a human being who can divide itself into two identical people.

An embryo behaves very differently to a human. This is what embryonic stem cell research is based on. Cells have not decided what they wish to be and can be coaxed into becoming just about anything.

"It is now legal to abort a baby throughout pregnancy but once born, killing the baby becomes infanticide."


No, it is not legal to abort throughout pregnancy. I have no idea why you would think that. Thirty six states prohibit late term abortion and thirteen states ban abortion after thirteen weeks except in cases of threat to a woman's life.

"Why does the baby have human rights immediately after birth but not the day before? It's illogical. All organisms ultimately die. Any organism is either living or dead. There's no middle ground of being neither alive nor dead, somewhere between life and death. Between conception and birth, the baby is alive. After birth, the baby continues to be alive."

Again, here you are mixing in your opinion with fact. Cells are alive, but whether that group of cells is a living human being is debated. Therefore your statement "the baby is alive" is not fact, but opinion.


Pro-Choice individuals believe that a woman should not be FORCED to see sonograms, etc. Your own words imply force.

"In every state where lawmakers have proposed or passed bills *******mandating******* a woman's right to know -- to know the truth about what her baby looks like at that point in pregnancy, that it has a heartbeat and brainwaves, etc. -- "pro-choice" activists who talk about women's "reproductive rights" have fought against allowing women the right, the choice to see what is happening inside their own uteri, even to see diagrams. They say they are not pro-abortion so why don't they allow women to have more information before choosing to end their babies' lives? It doesn't seem that they want the abortion rate to decrease or for any woman who has considered abortion to choose to have her baby."

Again, look at your own words. "Mandating". These laws would FORCE a woman to view these things. No pro-choice advocate is against a woman exercising her option to see an ultrasound. They are against a woman wanting an abortion and being forced to view an ultrasound, sonogram, model, diagram, etc.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. This is the Catholic group on Democratic Underground.

There are Catholics that do believe that women have the right to do what they want with their bodies. I am one of them. If you wish to be pro-life, that is fine. I am arguing against you using all of biology to do it and claiming that the issue is settled BIOLOGICALLY.
To use Church teachings to say "this is why I am pro-life" is perfectly understandable. It is you that brought biology into the question and it is you that have suggested the answer to the question has been settled scientifically.

[DemBones DemBones]

25. Democratic Underground approved the Catholic Group rules.

Catholic Group rules don't allow arguing against Church teachings.

Catholics who support abortion are going against Church teaching and may have excommunicated themselves, depending on how far they take that support. The Church is very clear about this issue.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. You are neither the pope of the church nor the pope of the group.

And I neither desire nor require your approval as a Catholic. I was born, baptized, received my first communion, made my first confession, and was confirmed in the Catholic church. I have served as an alter server, a Eucharistic minister, liturgy of the word leader, bible vacation instructor and a CCD aid. I have been through thirteen years of Catholic school and I have never met another Catholic who has been as bold as to try and determine who may or may not have "excommunicated themselves" or call themselves a Catholic.

The group rules state that one must be respectful of Catholic beliefs and that the forum is not intended as a place to debate Church teachings. It is not I that have tried to push you out of the Catholic church. I respect your beliefs. I do not respect your bullying of others however, nor do I respect your unethical attempts to bend all of Biology to your will.

[DemBones DemBones]

31. I would think that all Catholics know that if you

"formally cooperate" in an abortion, you automatically excommunicate yourself, in the same way that you automatically excommunicate yourself if you divorce and remarry without having your prior marriage declared not to have been a sacramental marriage, only a civil one.

I would hope that they also know you can be forgiven any sin if you repent and go to confession.

I don't see anything particularly bold about stating these things.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has an entire section dealing with abortion in its discussion of the Fifth Commandment, "You shall not kill."

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theredpen]

33. Read the Catechism

DemBones DemBones isn't dictating anything. She's citing the officially published positions of the Catholic Church. It not DemBones DemBones that decided to push people out of the Catholic Church for supporting abortion — even indirectly — it's the Catholic Church that decided that.

Am I comfortable with their absolutist position? Honestly, no, but I understand the pro-life underpinnings of it. When I say "pro-life," I don't mean anti-abortion, I mean pro-life. Pro-life means supporting the value of human life from conception to natural death. It means refraining from unjust wars, like our war in Iraq. It means that the death penalty is essentially unusable. It means that we must do what we can to give everyone a chance to live a happy and healthy life (yes, I know we will fail miserably to achieve this goal, but we must do what we can). This is what's called a "Consistent Life Ethic" if "pro-life" is too-charged a term.

Bottom line is that I'm willing to debate the finer points of the morality of pregnancy termination, but I won't abandon a Consistent Life Ethic. If you can come up with pro-choice positions that are compatible with a CLE, I'd love to hear all about them.

Finally, I wouldn't get so high and mighty about other people's misapprehensions about biology. You wanted to find a human who could split themselves into a copy? There's one sitting in your chair. All we need to do is to remove an ovum from one of your ovaries (assuming you are young enough to have any) and prick it with a very thin needle. For reasons we don't fully understand, this causes the egg cell to begin dividing into an embryo that is a duplicate of the mother. This technique can be consistently performed on the ova of large mammals, but has never been done with a human egg cell for obvious ethical reasons. Still, there's nothing so special about human ova that would prevent this trick from working.

Of course, this throws a big buckets of mud on the "life begins at conception" standard. :shrug:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

36. You are talking about artificial activation.

Artificial activation does not result in a clone of the mother. Artificial activation refers to the process by which an egg can be "artificially activated" by pricking it with a needle. The process does not result in a full organism growing, or an organism growing...period. It couldn't because a female ovum only has half the chromosomes necessary. Here's an article about it:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=514616

I have no idea why you bring this up because this is not akin to a full grown human being dividing into another full grown human being at all. It is not even close. I suppose you could artificially clone an animal, but this requires a lot of extra scientific intervention and the success rates are low. This is not the same as when an embryo naturally splits into two individuals.

Secondly, certain posters keep suggesting that the matter has been settled by the Church when THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Excommunicate those that support pro-choice rights? Even the POPE says he wouldn't do that.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/05/is_excommunicat.html

So if the pope says he wouldn't...who is anyone in this forum to say that those politicians would be excommunicated (or are already excommunicated)? Further, other Catholic scholars have said it is impossible for someone other than that particular person's priest to make that call after discussing the matter with that particular individual personally.

[DemBones DemBones]

11. You are quite correct in all that you said, except

life really does begin at conception, from a biological standpoint, as I explained above.

I wrote a response to Semi-Charmed Quark the other night but couldn't post it. My ISP or DU always gets screwy around that time. So here 'tis, some of it repeating what you said but with other things thrown in:


Pro-life Catholics are usually opposed to war, the death penalty, and euthanasia, as well as abortion. This is often called the "seamless garment" position, opposing all types of killing except in defense of one's own life. Other pro-lifers may have different views. Most evangelical pro-lifers seem to support the death penalty and think war is acceptable so it would be better to characterize them, and Catholics with those views, as anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia rather than pro-life, since they don't oppose all killing.

Pope John Paul II taught the seamless garment ethic and Pope Benedict XVI has continued to. Both have spoken out against the war in Iraq and against the death penalty, as well as against abortion and euthanasia. Pope John Paul II thought that invading Afghanistan in search of Al Qaeda was a "just" war, which is the only sort of war allowed under Catholic doctrine. Some pro-life Catholics would have agreed at the time, others would have differed. The pope spoke out strongly against the invasion of Iraq, as did many Catholics and others.

The 1994 Catechism says that the death penalty is wrong and should be unnecessary today but does not say Catholics must oppose it. Thus Justice Scalia and other can support the death penalty without violating Catholic teaching. I believe Senator Kerry supports the death penalty for terrorists only. Many people, Catholic or not, support it only in some cases that are particularly heinous.

Senator Kerry and other Catholics who do anything to support abortion, whether they are legislators or abortion clinic workers, donate to a pro-abortion group, or have an abortion are violating Catholic teaching and have automatically excommunicated themselves so they could legitimately be denied Communion.
To be eligible to receive Communion again, a Catholic simply has to confess the sin and be absolved by a priest, who acts on behalf of Jesus. Jesus gave His disciples the ability to forgive sins, to absolve people of their sins.

When you confess, though, you are supposed to have remorse for the sins you are confessing and have the intent not to commit that sin again in the future. If you support abortion in any way, unless you intend to stop doing so, you can't really be remorseful and have the intent to stop supporting it. I don't know how "pro-choice" Catholics deal with this as far as their conscience goes. Most say they are personally opposed to abortion, so they're really pro-life but feel they are forced into voting for legislation that supports abortion for political reasons.

If a priest knew for sure that someone had committed any grave sin and had not confessed it, he could refuse Communion to the person, but it's the responsibility of Catholics themselves to go to confession and not to receive Communion if they have not confessed a grave sin. It's an honor system, really.

If you receive Communion when you have not confessed a mortal sin, you sin again. If a priest or bishop unjustly denies you Communion, he sins.

[rug]

12. It does not violate Catholic teaching to vote against imprisoning doctors and women.

To vote against a bill criminalizing abortion is not necesssarily a vote to support abortion invoking automatic excommunication.

The Church should not rely on a state to enforce its own moral theology.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. Perhaps not, though theologians and ethicists might disagree. But

I was thinking more about Catholic politicians voting to fund abortions or donating to "pro-choice" groups than about voting against banning abortion. The only bill I know of that has attempted to ban abortion was the "partial birth" abortion bill, which only banned a procedure and is unlikely to have saved a single baby since there are other ways to perform late-term abortions.

I don't think outlawing abortion is the answer. Things that are outlawed still go on. Changing people's hearts about abortion is needed, overcoming the "pro-choice" propaganda that an embryo is "just a clump of cells" and "an abortion no different than scraping skin cells off your hand or arm, or a scab off your knee," all of which are still said although they are completely unscientific statements.

I don't think of campaigning to make abortion very rare by eliminating the need as asking the state to enforce a Church teaching but as calling for a humane policy to drastically reduce the killing of unborn babies.

The Church opposes contraception but it's more humane for people to prevent conceiving unwanted babies than to abort them. Sperm and ova are living cells but not organisms. Once a sperm fertilizes an ovum, there is a new living organism.

[fishwax]

29. I think canon law is far from settled about whether working for a pro-abortion group or publicly

supporting abortion is in fact excommunicating yourself. Having or performing a successful abortion causes a latae sententiae excommunication, but what constitutes being an accomplice in such a violation is, if I'm not mistaken, far from a settled point of canon law. I have heard that there are some bishops have said that politicians and/or activists who support legislation decriminalizing abortion are excommunicating themselves, but others have interpreted canon law differently.

[chieftain]

39. I think you misstate the Church's position on divorce and

excommunication. In reading the Catholic Catechism it is clear that divorce is a grave sin that when accompanied by marriage to another without the benefit of an annulment precludes the divorcee from receiving Holy Communion.This sin, however, can be forgiven by a priest in the Sacrament of Penance provided the divorcee repents and lives in a strictly platonic state with the new spouse. In the case of excommunication, the grave sin can only be absolved by the Pope or the Bishop in the area of the sin or priests that have been delegated the power to absolve such sins.

[CBHagman]

8. In the "for what it's worth" category...

...Archbishop Burke also declared publicly that he would not give Communion to Senator John Kerry. See the link below.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3028700.ece

Dr Burke made headlines during the 2004 election campaign by saying he would refuse Communion to John Kerry, the Democratic nominee. He has said he believes that anyone administering Communion is morally obligated to deny it to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.

That said, American bishops do not take a uniform stance on this issue, and I can testify from personal experience that priests do not have a single approach either when it comes to either divorced and remarried Catholics or pro-choice voters. See below.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/11/a_debate_simmers_over_kerry_and_the_eucharist/

Kerry's archbishop, Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, would not deny Kerry the sacrament. The cardinal who heads a committee on relationships between the hierarchy and Catholic politicians, Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, also would give Communion to Kerry. And Rev. John Ardis, the director of the Paulist Center on Beacon Hill, where Kerry generally worships and plans to celebrate Easter today, says he would welcome Kerry.

(SNIP)

The discussion of Kerry's eligibility for Communion appears to have been driven by comments by Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis and Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb., who said they would turn Kerry away, and by an apparent misunderstanding of O'Malley's stance.

According to O'Malley's spokesman, the Rev. Christopher J. Coyne, the archbishop of Boston does not turn people away for Communion despite his staunch opposition to abortion rights. He said Catholics know they are supposed to be "properly disposed" for the reception of Communion, which means "they are not in a state of serious sin, and have not separated themselves from the church by a public action."

And on the 40th anniversary of JFK's death, the Cathedral of St. Matthew in Washington, D.C., held a special memorial mass. In attendance was Senator Edward Kennedy, the late president's sole surviving brother, a pro-choice Democrat. I don't know whether the senator took Communion, but he was warmly received by the celebrant.

[DemBones DemBones]

14. There is no way for a priest or bishop or even the pope to know

whether or not someone has confessed any mortal sins s/he might have committed before going up to receive Communion at Mass.

A priest may think or be sure that a particular person didn't confess to him, if he can see people in the darkness of the confessional, or recognize their voices. But unless they're on an island with no other priests and no way to get ashore, he can't know that a person hasn't confessed to another priest.

As a Eucharistic minister, I realized early on that it wasn't my responsibility to wonder if someone had confessed a mortal sin; it was their responsibility to confess any mortal sin. It's an honor system.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

24. I have a friend in another parish whose wife, non catholic, is allowed to take communion....

Don't think I didn't flip when I heard that. She's a flipping baptist, refusing to convert, but her kids are catholic and the priest is just happy to get a butt in the seat.
Duckie

[CBHagman]

27. It's been my experience that priests vary in their approach.

Let me preface this by saying that whenever I attend a Mass at which the guidelines are posted for taking communion (for instance, in a program containing the service's hymns, etc.), directions are very explicit: baptized Catholics who have made their first Communion and who, upon examination of conscience, do not believe they are in a state of mortal sin may take communion, and all others, including any non-Catholics present, are respectfully instructed not to receive the Eucharist.

However, I have known priests who gave Communion to Christians who were not baptized Catholics. In one case the priest said he would not refuse Communion to someone who sincerely believed in the divine presence, and he had discussed that with the person in question.

[hedgehog]

28. WWJD?

[DemBones DemBones]

30. Jesus said if you weren't for Him, you

were against Him, a line stolen by someone less holy (cough) in recent years.

In the same way, you're either Catholic or you're not. (You may love Jesus and not be Catholic, of course.)

If you're not Catholic, you shouldn't receive Communion in a Catholic church because you don't believe what Catholics believe, not to mention that you haven't been to confession and have probably committed a few grave sins in your life. You don't meet the requirements for receiving Communion.

We are not the only Christians with a closed Communion; you're not supposed to take Communion in a Baptist church unless you are Baptist, and they will make you be rebaptized as well. Ditto for Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, probably other churches as well.

Every church has a right to make its own rules according to its interpretation of the New Testament and tradition.

I don't think it's ever right to take Communion in a church you don't belong to, unless the church states it has open Communion.

[theredpen]

34. You know those flipping Baptists...

Sometimes the only way to get them to stop yammering on about being "washed in the blood" is to stick a communion wafer in their cake hole.

(Apologies to my Baptist brothers and sisters ;))

[mrgorth]

38. Good discussion guys

I realize it got a little heated but I still found it wworth while to read. I didn't know, and still have trouble believing, that some of these things make you "excommunicate yourself". My understanding was that excomm'ing was a big deal and only done by the Church. I occupy and uncomfortable middle ground in this debate but my ex wife does ultrasound and I watched both of my boys grow from little nuggets into the boys they are almost every day since we knew she was pregnant. I asked her her opinion one day and she said "8 weeks". After 8 weeks you know it's another life. That's not to say that a mother in jeopardy shouldn't get an abortion if her life is in danger but I think it's something. I think we (as dems) lose a lot of people by not even acknowledging the science involved here much less the moral realities.