The issue over openly pro-abortion rights politicians who are Catholic and whether they should receive Communion has come down to two basic camps: Yes they should, no they shouldn't.
For the most part, the 'Yes they should' camp swings left of center, and often advocates for a host of modern, post-modern, post-Christian agendas and values. On the other hand, the 'No they shouldn't' camp tends toward conservative, traditional, and openly critical of the Church's attempts to fashion the Faith in the likeness of our post-modern society.
I would never say everyone falls exclusively into those two camps. Most that I've read and heard, however, can be placed into those categories with little effort. So I was pleasantly surprised to see John C. Wright step into the fray.
Mr. Wright takes a different approach. Ultimately he echoes the 'Yes they should' camp by suggesting it's not our business what goes on between God and a politician who flouts the Church's teachings. But - and this is the departure from that camp - she absolutely should repent and stop what she or he is doing. The politician in question should be made aware of the grievous sin being committed and the eternal consequences that await those who mock God. .
Having been informed and pastorally admonished, if the politician continues to flaunt the Gospel yet ignore biblical warnings about unworthy communion, then so be it. That is between them and the Almighty and their eternal destiny.
It would be nice if you knew the difference between flaunt and flout.
ReplyDeleteHeh. Corrected.
DeleteAs Jesus said, "They have the Law and the Prophets. If they do not believe them, well ..." Pray, do not flaunt your ignorance by flouting proper word usage!;-)
ReplyDelete:)
DeleteThis in one rare instance where I disagree with Mr. Wright. While the issue is certainly between the politician and God, it's not ONLY between them and God. Receiving the Eucharist by its very nature performatively signals a participation in the body of Christ and that one believes in and adheres to her teachings. When one is a public figure who publicly renounces the teachings of the Church, that is a markedly different situation from a normal situation where one cannot know the heart or actions of the potential communicant.
ReplyDeletePope Francis' own words applied to this situation indicate how much scandal ensues. He has repeatedly likened abortion to hiring a hit man, an analogy I full agree with. In the case of politicians like Pelosi and Biden, they are putative Catholics who vehemently support the right to hire hit men to murder the innocent. They have supported the right to hire hit men to murder the innocent both vocally and legislatively for years without apology. The have both recently publicly lamented that there is no Constitutional right to hire hit men to murder the innocent and are currently and actively seeking ways around that to ensure that people who might not otherwise be able to hire hit men to murder the innocent are able to do so. Even further, they have both sought to force others who don't want hit men to be able to be hired to pay for hit men to be hired to murder the innocent.
When the ramifications are laid out as such, it's unclear to me how this situation could be understood to be something only between them and God, as the public nature of the act is ridden with scandal. If, as Pope Francis rightly says, Biden's position on advocating for the right to hire hit men to murder the innocent and his purported Catholicism is "incoherence," then that same incoherence surely extends to his public reception of the Eucharist while still holding to such a position.
That's a good point. That's similar to what I thought at first reading of Mr. Wright's point. As I said below, if Pope Francis said abortion is no big deal, though a bad witness for Church teaching, it wouldn't be so bad for the pro-abortion Catholics. As it is, with him calling it child murder, then acting as if it's not a deal breaker, he more or less says murdering children is not a deal breaker. That, I admit, is a huge problem.
DeleteWe've been trying hard with the "pastoral solution" for most of my life. It has not provoked any particular repentance. Rather, it has provided cover for why one or another may summarily obliterate one or another Church teaching. It's all well and good for Mr. Wright to declare that Speaker Pelosi ought repent. ...Except that bishops, priests, and laity have been saying thus for at least 3 decades now, ...and not only regarding Speaker Pelosi.
ReplyDeleteIf you never enforce the law, the law itself becomes irrelevant and void in practice. Most/many of the Church's ills have been political kerfuffles for quite some time already.
If Pope Francis wishes for the Church to regain any credibility, ...he needs to actually enforce the laws which derive from the Church's teaching.
I can see that as a bigger problem. I think Mr. Wright is onto something, in that he puts the emphasis on the eternal consequences of such middle finger approaches to Church teaching. It's not a political issue at all, but an issue for the politicians' souls. But I see what you're saying. And I think the witness of Catholics like Pope Francis makes it even more difficult, since he says abortion is nothing less than murdering children, but then acts as if it's no big deal compared to something like Covid lockdowns.
DeleteCan sombody find any example of Pope Francis affirming Church teaching on Abortion? Every example I can find has been half-assed at best
ReplyDeleteActually, Pope Francis has made some direct statements about abortion being child murder. And to me, that's the big problem. If he broke with Church teaching and said abortion is no big deal, it wouldn't be as bad. But by him saying abortion is nothing less than the murder of children, and then acting as if it is not a deal breaker next to really important things like Covid lockdowns and global warming, suggests murdering children is not a deal breaker. Which is a bad look from any angle.
DeleteI always thought that if you hire a hit man to kill someone you want eliminated from your life you are implicated in that murder along with the hit man and can be charged. There are so many inconsistencies in the pro-choice argument it's not funny. It always comes down to the ignorant "my body my choice". It may be my body but what is inside of that body is a unique human life which science confirms and the left ignores. It used to be argued it is only a mass of cells or a blob of cells. Then it was said it isn't human until viability. Now it's come to this: It doesn't matter if it is human. It's my body and I don't want that 'thing' in my body and I choose to have it extracted. Safe and rare? Bullshit.
ReplyDeleteI find many modern leftwing causes - LGBTQ, abortion, climate change - appear awash in such vague and meaningless slogans and talking points. It comes down to most on the Left - especially Christians - deny the obvious, compared to conservatives who will generally admit they are conservative.
Delete