The new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is urging the Synod of Bishops to discuss whether voters who support pro-abortion candidates should be receiving Communion. Archbishop Levada suggested that the synod, in its small-group discussions, debate the problem of Catholics "who do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favor of abortion or other serious acts against life."
Good to see the Archbishop taking the bull by the horns.
First, I am not Catholic, so my perspective is different than most of you reading this...
If people who sin are denied a sacrament/rite/blessing of the church, shouldn't they all (sins) be treated equally? Do not liars face the same punishment as murders? (Rev 21:8)
Thus if we as a church, sinners all, take a stand that if you sin in this way, you can no longer be a part of our church's sacraments, should we not all be denied these same things?
Seriously - I have sin in my life, fortunately for me it may not be obvious to you. Others have sin that is much more public in nature and we can pick on them more easily to be denied 'things' of our church. We can tell a young couple living together they can not marry in our church, but the couple sitting next to them still has pre-marital sex, you just don't know it.
I don't know how the Catholic church does it, but my guess is you are to be pardoned your sins through/by the priest before taking communion. Well, then what's the difference if someone voted pro-abortion and got forgiveness than if they murdered/lied/had sex and asked for forgiveness. Voting is a once-every-couple-years proposition and granted, people may 'sin with foresight' if you consider voting pro-abortion a sin. But most people who have sex outside of marriage do it with great foresight too.
And the whole aspect of 'voting for a pro-abortion candidate for political office' just rubs me the wrong way. First, politics is a more-than-one-issue game. Second, why just pro-abortion, why not (for the Catholic church) band those who vote for candidates who are for the death penalty? Hmmm, gets interesting here, doesn't it. Both of those are "life" issues, yes? So neither those of you who votes for Kerry or Bush are permitted to take communion now, huh? I know Eric claims to have voted for Alan Keyes, kudos to him, he can still go to heaven while the rest of us burn :-)
And why stop with those issues, there are many others to choose from. You could, as a church, tell people "here's the 1 guy we support" and 'force' your people to vote for him/her or they'll be denied the sacraments so necessary for your church's belief system, couldn't you?
Lastly, how do you enforce or confirm how someone voted? Could the church, as a body, get proxy power for their congregation? That's the only way I could see this working in the real world. Any other way, I see a lot of lying going around, which is more sin and death and that's not healthy.
Comments from the Catholic faithful greatly anticipated... No harm meant, just raising legitimate points here...
Caleb
I am disappointed in the faithful readership of this blog - and you know who you are. I don't want Eric to respond right away - he posed a situation/thought process - I responded. Do none of you have an opinion on the matter? Come on people, you (shouldn't) be excommunicated for posting your beliefs... Caleb
Some of us just aren't interested in commenting on the issue; others don't have the time to visit & read every day.
You are applying the same answer to two different questions. Liars and murderers may face the same punishment from God in eternal life, but this is not the question the bishops are discussing. They are discussing whether it is appropriate to give communion to people who are publicly rejecting communion with the Church, inasmuch as they publicly rejected some teaching of the church.
The Church understands quite well that people are weak, and that all of us commit sins, and that if every sinner were prevented from receiving communion, then no one could receive communion, more or less.
This, however, is a question of people who willingly and knowingly commit sins that are not sins of weakness. They are not, generally speaking sins caused by losing oneself in a moment of passion; they are sins caused by deliberation, and deciding that satisfying oneself is more important than maintaining the faith of Christianity.
Abortion, for example, is an issue that the bishops feel is very important, on which they have been very clear, and on which the world has chosen to take a different position to the tune of millions, if not billions, of dead. This isn't merely a political issue, this is a matter of life and death.
With the death penalty, on the other hand, much of the world (including most traditionally Catholic countries, if not all) have come down on the side of the Church, and (moreover) the Church itself admits that the death penalty may be licit in some circumstances. The question of whether those circumstances apply is one that changes over time, as Pope John Paul II pointed out in Evangelium Vitae, and there can thus be legitimate disagreement. Abortion however is not affected by circumstances; it is always wrong, and the Church has always taught that abortion is wrong.
As Jack pointed out, what we are referring to is not excluding your average voter from communion, but excluding Congressmen and other politicians whose votes on legislation are public record from communion. The goal is not to force the congregation to vote for a particular candidate but to prevent a politician from supporting legislation that harms innocent lives.
As for all sins being treated equally, we do not hold to that idea, and I'll refrain from citing the relevant scripture, as I don't think that would be profitable.
The reason why abortion is over-arching and why this is unlikely to be applied to other issues is because it has to do with killing innocent life. Nothing else that needs to be voted on pertains to that. There is nothing wrong with saying that this is a singularly serious issue that merits this kind of treatment. For many other issues, it's simply not feasible in our society to press them in its current state. For example, I approve of outlawing contraception, but there is no hope whatsoever of getting such legislation passed, and indeed doing so may end up being counterproductive. Abortion legislation, however, as an issue many people are on the fence about, is something that we have a hope of passing. You have to choose your battles, in other words.