News-Record.com

The decision should not be a broad-stroked one by the Catholic church, rather it should be left to the individual bishop/priest. Then again, with the long reaching controlling arm of the Catholic church, that likely would prove detrimental to the individual bishop/priest.

Shalom

What does a Catholic risk if he happens to shake hands with Obama? Five "Hail Mary's" and a side-order of fries? :)

If you consider the fact that abortion is an intrinsically grave moral evil, then to give support to a political candidate (for whatever office) who is an abortion rights supporter is to materially cooperate with that grave moral evil. Therefore, the take on it is yes, it is legitimate to deny Communion to a Catholic who is knowingly supporting a political candidate who supports abortion. In fact, because of the grave level of scandal it causes, it is more than just legitimate, it is imperative.

I feel sorry for people who really believe that the highest calling in their life is to ensure that the maximum number of abortions is performed.

The Bible is quite clear on the issue (supposing for the moment that is of any import to those who write and comment on this column). God created man in his own image and imbued him with a soul that separates him and makes him "higher" than the animals. God knew us when we were knit together in our mothers wombs. We are intrinsically valuable and human life is not to be taken lightly. For example, those who cause a woman to miscarry are severely sanctioned in the Bible.
(Hey folks, if we are going to question whether one should be denied communion, we need to examine the Biblical basis for it. On the other hand, if you believe that it is a purely political issue, then we need to move this debate to another column.)

What is really demented, however, is those who are fine with a couple million abortions of innocent life each year but oppose putting murdering child molesters to death. (Hey, how about a column on the rationality of this perspective?)

Last I heard, religious affiliation was voluntary, including those in the hierarchy.

Pray for our leaders, whoever they may be.

If I believed in a person strongly enough to ignore their moral stance on any issue, I would voluntarily leave the body of believers and pursue some other path.

If you don't believe that God will exact justice on those who kill the innocent, you should seek enlightenment from your source of authority.

Not for me to judge.

"I feel sorry for people who really believe that the highest calling in their life is to ensure that the maximum number of abortions is performed."

Excuse me? Have you EVER see or heard of ANYONE who wants this as a goal? If so, please name them and provide evidence that they said this.

" . . . to ensure that the maximum number of abortions is performed."
"Excuse me? Have you EVER see or heard of ANYONE who wants this as a goal?"

I don’t think this was a statistical point being made here, Namtac; but rather a rhetorical device used to emphasize a point: i.e., it would SEEM that way, considering the lengths that abortionists go to insure that anyone can get an abortion – for whatever reasons.

I think all the pro-life points made here were well put and cogent. Infant-eradicators always seem to shy away from the argument when it comes to the innumerable pictures, research and other evidence that children in the womb are viable human beings: tiny precious little babies created in God’s very image and likeness. They have no rational answer to this fact. All they seem to care about is the woman’s “right” (there is none!) to eliminate an inconvenient blob of growing tissue.

Assuming the picture of a developing child in the womb above, the RCC has a sound, biblical rationale for denying the Sacrament to those who perform abortions, or support those who do. It is, in fact, egregious murder – of the most innocent and defenseless among us.

Holy Communion is the sign and seal of Christians’ union with Christ and one another – the very core of our identity as God’s people. Communicants are always urged to repent and find the inner cleansing of divine forgiveness before they partake; for, as St. Paul stresses in I Cor. 11, they bring judgment upon themselves by taking the holy supper in sin.

Although I am not a Roman Catholic, I stand in strict solidarity with them on this issue; and I think it is, as was stated by JWM, “it is more than just legitimate, it is imperative” that excommunication be implemented to both priesthood and laity for complicity in so heinous a sin. God grant them courage to persevere in this policy.

Namtac:

You appear not to understand either the law or the pro-abortion platform of no limits on abortion for any reason.

Since Roe v. Wade until very recently there were literally no limits on when one could have an abortion or the reason for the abortion or how the abortion could be performed. Doe v. Bolton, a case decided at the same time as Roe v. Wade made clear that abortions for the health of the mother includes anything that might be considered "health" such as waking up grumpy. Today we still have third trimester abortions. Abortions literally can be performed up until the child is ex utero (this was why partial birth abortion was so important to pro-aborts; it makes it possible to abort a child that is all but born).

If you don't believe that the position of the pro-abortion movement is that there should be no limits on abortion for any reason, just listen to Barbara Boxer (if you can stand it) or Kate Michaelman (sp?) or any of the other radical feminists who lead the movement.

What is one to infer from the position of groups like NARAL and their opposition to any limits on abortion other than abortions are a social good?(Parenthetically, abortion rights folks chaffed at Naomi Wolfe's suggestion that women who get abortions should admit it is a bad thing).

"You appear not to understand either the law or the pro-abortion platform of no limits on abortion for any reason."

I know the difference between allowing women to choose what happens to their bodies and requiring them to have abortions. Your hyperbolic statement implies the latter. Either defend your statement or modify it please.

Namtac, I never meant to imply that women were "required" to have abortions. In fact, they are conplicit in the offense by themselves choosing to kill their developing baby; although often misinformed or misled in that decision by abortionists. I am also aware of the life-and-death emergency decisions that have to be made, but these are far-removed from elective abortions done for convenience.

Again, our culture has become so addicted to pre- and extra-marital sex that abortions are now an expected "out" should pregnancy occur - deadly birth control, if you will. As in many other scenarios, sinful results are used to justify sinful remedies, creating a downward spiral of consequences.

If we adhered to God's standards of purity and righteousness these issues (STDs, AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, single parent homes) would be largely non-issues. God says:

"See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land . . . therefore CHOOSE LIFE, that both you and your descendants may live. Deut. 30: 15, 16, and 19.

"Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people."
Proverbs 14: 34

I remember what a few professors extolled to me on numerous occasions; CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!

Shalom

Darryl, what on earth could you possibly be inferring by that strange statement?!
That God's exhortations and Commandments to the Israelites were ONLY for them? Surely you are more educated than that. Even Jesus constantly referred to Deut. and other OT books and "contexts." This view is and OLD liberal attempt to circumvent the moral imperatives of God's universal and eternal moral Law. Sorry, it won't work!